pilgrim.1:

Hello William_C, a warm welcome to Nairaland.  We trust you would enjoy the discussions that drew you to register and participate, and thank you for a cordial start.

Thank you so much for the cordial reception.

Indeed, religion and faith are very sensitive issues which people are seeking to understand. It so happens that those who self-identify as 'non-religious' often tend to regard the contents of the various worldviews and belief systems in a simplistic fashion, which leads to huge misunderstandings. To offer a tidy reply, I'd rather assume the essence of your 'disbelief' instead of treating every single line in your post. Then sometime later as needs be, I'd come back to address the underlying presumption of your type of atheism by seeking to understand how atheism is defined by several atheist thinkers. So enjoy.

Nice, I quite agree with some of what you have written. I think most of what is going on here is a misunderstanding of the positions of what atheism is. Atheism is the lack of belief in God. It is not a proof for the existence of God but its a state of disbelief based on the reasons provided for the existence of God. You can not disprove the existence of God, you can only disprove the evidence provided by those who believe in God for the existence of God. For example Scientist can not disprove the existence of the God of the bible but the scientist can disprove the creation accounts of the bible. Here is what a friend of mine said in another blog "As science learned more and more about the universe, some of the stories in the Bible became impossible.  For example, the two creation stories in Genesis are now taught as "poetry about the creation of the universe" by the Catholic church.  They didn't USED to teach it that way, but sooner or later, when science had filled in the gap in human knowledge regarding the start of all things to such an extent that the Genesis stories were ridiculous, the church "moved the goalposts" and started calling the stories "poetry" or parables, etc."

I can not prove that the Christian God does not exist but I can prove by providing historical and archaeological evidence that the exodus story in the bible is pure myth. I can provided historical evidence that prove that so many of the stories in the bible are either myths or grossly exaggerated or never happened at all(Noah's flood, conquest of Canaan etc). The atheist can not disprove the existence of God but he can disprove some of the stories that supports the idea of God who participated in most of the events that were told.

One is tempted to offer terse answers to each concern above and still come back to the basic point: you haven't "proven" anything for your disbelief. At best, your concerns are typically polarised towards atheism and reveal huge gaps which may lead one to believe that you haven't really studied issues objectively. Suffering, wars, frauds, irreconcilable differences, fundamentalism, child abuses, flaws in disbeliefs, discrimination, wasteful of resources in secular evangelism, one's subjective experiences - all these and more can be well-articulated in atheism as well; and then what do you do? At the end of the day, you'd discover you made a case that is no case at all; and what you'd have left is an utter non-starter.

I can provide some evidence for my disbelief, I can not disprove the existence of God but when the Christian believer tells me that the bible is the word of a divine and supernatural God and everything that it contains is true, I can provide evidence to show that some of what he says are not true, or did not happen as the bible said or never happened at all. No body can disprove any of the gods, but the evidence provided in terms of religious text, personal experiences like miracles, prayers can be disproved or explained through other ways that are empirically verifiable.

Take the quip in yours that: "science has proved religion wrong". Such statements are made out-of-hand because one is not asking the right questions and merely flirting with a huge presumption. The typical trend you've followed here is what I regard as one among the many fallacious logic that springs from the "need to disprove" the worldviews of others. This type of logic tends to point accusing fingers at other beliefs as the basis for one's own 'disbelief'. The funny thing is that we all use this type of logic in common debates - Christians against Muslims; atheists against theists; democrats against republicans; liberals against conservatives; etc.

Sorry for putting it as a direct statement, I will now re-phrase it by saying that science has proved some of the assertions and claims of religions to be wrong.

The hard truth behind all these is that such fallacious logicum do not actually "disprove" anything. Its basic weakness is that it is intellectually lazy, as it really has no concrete outlook at the reality of issues which disturb one's disbelief. My style here is to move on beyond this trend of fallacious logic (and the "need to disprove" and take this type of atheistic assumption to the cleaners, so I'd need readers to put on their thinking caps.

I think I will be right if I say we don't see things from the same perspective. I am quite open minded if I see evidence that points to the other direction I will accept it.

I can well bear with you; however, this again is not sufficient evidence or proof for the non-existence of God or gods. It even does not constitute evidence for a "lack of" or non-existence of God's love for humanity. At best, it presupposes only one thing: you simply have not experienced that love for yourself.

I think you are think I am trying to provided evidence or proof for the non existence of God, That is not what I am doing, I am simply stating my reasons for disbelieving. When I look at the life of Christians who claim to be in a personal relationship with God and are experiencing his love, I don't see that they are better than those who are without that claim. I will expect a Christian believer who is in a personal and loving relationship with a divine entity to exhibit some different traits since he is associated with a supernatural being but I don't see that. That is also part of my reasons for disbelief that there is a supernatural being that engages with in a personal and loving relationship with human.

If there  is a supernatural being that engages himself in a loving relationship with Christians then you should expect Christians to suffer less than non Christians since they are in a loving relationship with a supernatural being that loves them, such a being should always protect them since they are his own and he loves them. He should have the ability to make them suffer less, but that is not the case. Christians and non Christians suffer the same faith all over the world, harm affects us all on the same level. No evidence to show that there is a supernatural being that protects Christians more than non Christians. A supernatural being that is in a loving relationship with Christian believers will protect them more than others and the evidence should be there for all to see but that is not the case.

I very much doubt your distrust is based on reason or objectivity. I would refer to this as typically a case where someone is operating from the bias of a need to disbelieve than of open, objective enquiry.

LOL, I said I distrust the bible as the word of a supernatural and divine being because it contains a lot of historical and scientific errors. Some of its assertions are also contrary to what I see happening around me.  

Now, now. . . where's dalaman?!?    Although he'd said earlier that atheists "do not say that there is no God(I can speak for my atheist friends here)"; yet I'd contested that the basic typical argument of many self-identified 'atheists' is the very claim that "there is NO God".

I said I have no choice if I'm to be honest with myself, I must say: There is no god based on the evidence I see around me. The evidence that the believers have provided to me lead me to this conclusion. Based on the evidence so for that have been provided to me, I have to concluded that there is no God based on the evidence that the believers have provided.

Now, the simple question theists are asking is this: HOW do you know? You'd have to provide "scientific" evidence and proof for your extraordinary claim that "there is no god". That claim does not stand simply because an atheist asserts it repeatedly and proceeds to offer "arguments" as substitutes for his 'evidence or proof'.

I don't have scientific evidence and proof for the non existence of God because I am not a scientist, I can only provide arguments against the claims of believers who say that there is a God. Keep in mind that the believers have not provided any scientific evidence or prove for the existence of God.

We are eagerly awaiting the so-called 'mountain of evidence' for your claim. Mere assertions from arguments of fallacious logic will not do.

I say this because the believer presents the bible as the mountain of evidence for his claim to the existence of God, but there are so many evidence and proof to show that so many of the bible assertions are false.

This is what amazes me. How could one conclude with a tone of finality that "there is no god" and then wait for 'really amazing facts' to contradict his conclusion(s)? This attitude has often been intelligently challenged; and that's why I wondered if anyone has thought about the revisionism of Dawkins' "there is no God" to the now terse "there is probably no God"?

Perhaps you don't understand what I am saying here, I reached to a conclusion based on the very unsatisfactory evidence that has been provided to me for the existence of God, but I am still willing and able to change my mind if I see evidence that points to the contrary

Lol, I don't think there's mental freedom expressed there. Trust me. You're happy to assert your convictions only in terms of the non-proof of your claim; and that in itself does not consititute hard evidence for the non-existence of God or the supernatural.

Let me say again that this is not simply a prove or disprove argument, but me simply stating why I disbelieve.

As regards telepathy at work, some researchers like the British biologist (or biochemist and plant physiologist), Dr. Sheldrake Rupert (Ph.D) has some credit in this field. Interestingly, he sees his research  on telepathy as a paranormal phenomenon (see his website). In other cases of evidences presented on phenomena which are inexplicable by naturalism, it does not appear that naturalists have been able to provide satisfactory counter-claims.

I will study the link first before making any remark. Thanks for the link.

However, in subsequent discourses (I hope to engage you in many more), I'd be looking at how atheists tend to define atheism and also how they react to evidence for what is beyond their worldview of naturalism.  Thank you for sharing, and once again welcome to Nairaland.

Thanks very much for the cordial welcome, Atheism is simply the lack of belief in God.  If concrete evidence is provided to me that shows the existence of something beyond my world view I will have no choice but to embrace it or at least reconsider my previous position. Thank you.

Hi again, William_C. .

Nice to read from you again. I anticipated your concerns and thought they were covered in my previous posts. So pardon me if I'd here take the essentials again from your rejoinder to deal with. Perhaps in future engagements, I may skip quite a lot so we don't come down to needless repetitions and the gist doesn't get lost in unrelated arguments.

William_C:

Nice, I quite agree with some of what you have written. I think most of what is going on here is a misunderstanding of the positions of what atheism is. Atheism is the lack of belief in God. It is not a proof for the existence of God but its a state of disbelief based on the reasons provided for the existence of God. You can not disprove the existence of God, you can only disprove the evidence provided by those who believe in God for the existence of God. For example Scientist can not disprove the existence of the God of the bible but the scientist can disprove the creation accounts of the bible. Here is what a friend of mine said in another blog "As science learned more and more about the universe, some of the stories in the Bible became impossible.  For example, the two creation stories in Genesis are now taught as "poetry about the creation of the universe" by the Catholic church.  They didn't USED to teach it that way, but sooner or later, when science had filled in the gap in human knowledge regarding the start of all things to such an extent that the Genesis stories were ridiculous, the church "moved the goalposts" and started calling the stories "poetry" or parables, etc."

There's a fundamental problem in your premise, which I could allow for the moment. I'd already said that we may allow any atheist to choose what best describes his/her worldview; and your definition of atheism is not all-embracing. I'm not one of those who takes the revisionist definition that atheism is the lack of belief in God, for such a definition runs counter to your initial assertion that "there is no god".

Such an assertion ("there is no god" goes beyond the terse idea that one lacks a belief in God, more so because such a person would be saying that they know that there is no God anywhere and at anytime. Question: how do you know? Even considered at face value, the same person could not be making two stretced statements at the same time. Consider these:

                     (a) "there is no God"

                     (b) "You can not disprove the existence of God"

The statement in (a) would require (b) as a necessary antecedent; because only when you have tried to disprove the existence of God (even any God/god) could you then go on to assert that 'there is No God'. You cannot assert that there is no God without having first tried to disprove anything about such an existence. This already weakens the grounds for your arguments.

However, your reason for disbelief is said to be on arguments about the nature of theology - that is, you reject theism because you have difficulties reconciling the Biblical accounts concerning creation, etc. The example you gave that there are 'two creation stories in Genesis' already falls flat on its face, for there is only one. Between Genesis 1 and 5, the creation narratives are consistent; but one comes up with two creation narratives because they are assuming such ideas into the texts (eise[/b]gesis) and not reasoning out of it ([b]exe[/b]gesis). Again, such ideologies do not disprove theism or the existence of God; and consequently you don't have sufficient grounds for affirming your disbelief.

William_C:

I can not prove that the Christian God does not exist but I can prove by providing historical and archaeological evidence that the exodus story in the bible is pure myth. I can provided historical evidence that prove that so many of the stories in the bible are either myths or grossly exaggerated or never happened at all(Noah's flood, conquest of Canaan etc). [b]The atheist can not disprove the existence of God but he can disprove some of the stories that supports the idea of God who participated in most of the events that were told.

Okay, since the atheist cannot disprove the existence of God, all other arguments will just be non-essentials at the moment.

William_C:

I can provide some evidence for my disbelief, I can not disprove the existence of God but when the Christian believer tells me that the bible is the word of a divine and supernatural God and everything that it contains is true, I can provide evidence to show that some of what he says are not true, or did not happen as the bible said or never happened at all. No body can disprove any of the gods, but the evidence provided in terms of religious text, personal experiences like miracles, prayers can be disproved or explained through other ways that are empirically verifiable.

Lol, that is quite an ambitious statement.   How do you provide "empirical" evidence to "disprove" miracles? Perhaps, the reason why I was careful to select the examples already given (atheists who belief in ghosts and John Safran's exorcism) is because I'd anticipated such statements as in your quote. How do you then "emprically" explain the reality in those two examples?

William_C:

Sorry for putting it as a direct statement, I will now re-phrase it by saying that science has proved some of the assertions and claims of religions to be wrong.

Maybe, maybe not. If the basic claim so far that I've been addressing to the atheist's attention is the supernatural, has science also proven the supernatural wrong?

William_C:

I think I will be right if I say we don't see things from the same perspective. I am quite open minded if I see evidence that points to the other direction I will accept it.

Of course, you're right that we don't see things from the same perspective. That is why I'm presenting issues that take the atheist to where he should be met. If you were presented with such evidence as in Safran's experience, what would you say?

William_C:

I think you are think I am trying to provided evidence or proof for the non existence of God, That is not what I am doing, I am simply stating my reasons for disbelieving. When I look at the life of Christians who claim to be in a personal relationship with God and are experiencing his love, I don't see that they are better than those who are without that claim. I will expect a Christian believer who is in a personal and loving relationship with a divine entity to exhibit some different traits since he is associated with a supernatural being but I don't see that. That is also part of my reasons for disbelief that there is a supernatural being that engages with in a personal and loving relationship with human.

This is quite amusing, please excuse me. If you were not trying to provide proof or evidence for the non-existence of God, what then do we make of your assertion that "there is no God"? Are we now to just take such statements and score them a good pass and expect nothing to prove your ground? Granted that you seek some traits to be exhibited in believers, but just what are those traits? You may have "reasons" for your disbelief; and so far what I see do not constitute any sound reason to disbelieve in the supernatural. Not being able to see some expected traits in the people you've come across does not therefore constitute a cogent argument against the supernatural.

William_C:

If there  is a supernatural being that engages himself in a loving relationship with Christians then you should expect Christians to suffer less than non Christians since they are in a loving relationship with a supernatural being that loves them, such a being should always protect them since they are his own and he loves them. He should have the ability to make them suffer less, but that is not the case. Christians and non Christians suffer the same faith all over the world, harm affects us all on the same level. No evidence to show that there is a supernatural being that protects Christians more than non Christians. A supernatural being that is in a loving relationship with Christian believers will protect them more than others and the evidence should be there for all to see but that is not the case.

Good points you raised, but they sadly tend to what I've called the fallacious logicum. You seem to have made up some idea that Christians should be cast in a certain way, and if you don't find those features, then for you that automatically disproves the existence of God or the supernatural. I could also make up any number of fallacious logic and adduce the weakness of your disbelief - would that even come close to reality? Now, if theism claims that no theists can be affected by suffering, you might have a point in your disbelief; but does theism make such a claim as you had cast for your disbelief? No. So, where do you lead your own ideas to?

William_C:

I said I have no choice if I'm to be honest with myself, I must say: There is no god based on the evidence I see around me. The evidence that the believers have provided to me lead me to this conclusion. Based on the evidence so for that have been provided to me, I have to concluded that there is no God based on the evidence that the believers have provided.

To draw a conclusion and to make an assertion are two different things. If you assert that "there is no God", you're asserting things bigger than your narrow disbelief - because the clause "no God" assumes that in all possible worlds, there is no such being that could be known as God. This is where you're struggling, not because you happen to not agree with some arguments presented by Christians. This again brings to mind: if the examples cited point to atheists who believe in what atheism rejects (such as ghosts and spirits), what then would you say?

William_C:

I don't have scientific evidence and proof for the non existence of God because I am not a scientist, I can only provide arguments against the claims of believers who say that there is a God. Keep in mind that the believers have not provided any scientific evidence or prove for the existence of God.

No, you're not looking for scientific evidence - only assuming it so. If you think Naturalism explains everything, please proffer some satisfying naturalistic evidence for the examples of the supernatural affirmations from atheists already cited. Would you be able to do so?

William_C:

I say this because the believer presents the bible as the mountain of evidence for his claim to the existence of God, but there are so many evidence and proof to show that so many of the bible assertions are false.

I could take you on them one-on-one. That is not the issue. I must constantly remind you that my approach is to meet the atheist right at his own doorstep - his naturalistic worldview. The argument about disbelief in the Bible would at the moment be inconsequential, because the basic premise of the atheist is that "there is no God". Consequently, since that assumes that in all possible worlds, the atheists takes the position that he knows there is no God anywhere and at anytime, I'm asking them to consider evidence for the supernatural. That is as simple as the task here could be. Ducking behind excuses that the Bible does not explicate issues to fit into your worldview does not constitute satisfactory premise for the assertion that "there is no God" - that would warrant you to show us how you conducted your own research in the real world and came to such a conclusion.

William_C:

Perhaps you don't understand what I am saying here, I reached to a conclusion based on the very unsatisfactory evidence that has been provided to me for the existence of God, but I am still willing and able to change my mind if I see evidence that points to the contrary

I've cited two - and I'm eagerly awaiting.

William_C:

Let me say again that this is not simply a prove or disprove argument, but me simply stating why I disbelieve.

I understand, which is why I was taking it outside the 'prove or disprove' arguments and broadening the scope of the discussion.

William_C:

I will study the link first before making any remark. Thanks for the link.

No worries.

William_C:

Thanks very much for the cordial welcome, Atheism is simply the lack of belief in God. If concrete evidence is provided to me that shows the existence of something beyond my world view I will have no choice but to embrace it or at least reconsider my previous position. Thank you.

Ah, that in a nutshell is what I'd have wanted to say: "evidence that shows the existence of something beyond your worldview" - and that is what I've been pointing to all along. Thanks for your rejoinder, and welcome anytime.

pilgrim.1:

Hi again, William_C. .

Nice to read from you again. I anticipated your concerns and thought they were covered in my previous posts. So pardon me if I'd here take the essentials again from your rejoinder to deal with. Perhaps in future engagements, I may skip quite a lot so we don't come down to needless repetitions and the gist doesn't get lost in unrelated arguments.

There's a fundamental problem in your premise, which I could allow for the moment. I'd already said that we may allow any atheist to choose what best describes his/her worldview; and your definition of atheism is not all-embracing. I'm not one of those who takes the revisionist definition that atheism is the lack of belief in God, for such a definition runs counter to your initial assertion that "there is no god".

Atheism is lack of belief in god, by god I mean the god head of the trinity as described in the bible since that is what we are talking about here. After looking at the evidence provided by those who are championing that idea I have come to the conclusion that such a god does not exist and hence my disbelief.

Such an assertion ("there is no god" goes beyond the terse idea that one lacks a belief in God, more so because such a person would be saying that they know that there is no God anywhere and at anytime. Question: how do you know? Even considered at face value, the same person could not be making two stretced statements at the same time. Consider these:

                     (a) "there is no God"

                     (b) "You can not disprove the existence of God"

The statement in (a) would require (b) as a necessary antecedent; because only when you have tried to disprove the existence of God (even any God/god) could you then go on to assert that 'there is No God'. You cannot assert that there is no God without having first tried to disprove anything about such an existence. This already weakens the grounds for your arguments.

I don't think it does, I say that there is no God because I have never seen any God make a proclamation that he exists. People are the ones that brought the idea of existence of God to my knowledge and people are the ones that have been making such proclamations all the time. So once again I can only disprove their proclamations since I have never seen any god make any proclamation about his existence.

However, your reason for disbelief is said to be on arguments about the nature of theology - that is, you reject theism because you have difficulties reconciling the Biblical accounts concerning creation, etc. The example you gave that there are 'two creation stories in Genesis' already falls flat on its face, for there is only one. Between Genesis 1 and 5, the creation narratives are consistent; but one comes up with two creation narratives because they are assuming such ideas into the texts ([b]eise[/b]gesis) and not reasoning out of it ([b]exe[/b]gesis). Again, such ideologies do not disprove theism or the existence of God; and consequently you don't have sufficient grounds for affirming your disbelief.

I believe that there are two different creation accounts having gone through the history of how both of them were written and what the message that the two different authors were trying to convey. Whether there are two different accounts in genesis or not is irrelevant because some of what is said has been disproved by science for example genesis 1 talks about God creating two lights, one to rule over the night(moon) and one to rule over the day(sun), Science has shown that the moon is not light but the light that comes from the moon is only a reflection of the light from the sun. The sun indeed is light but the moon is not. If you look at the earth from the moon in the night the earth looks just like the moon looks from the earth because it gives out light because the earth reflects light from the sun, does that mean that the earth is light? The people that wrote the creation accounts in genesis thought that the moon produced its own light that is why they wrote that God created two lights one to rule over the day(sun) and the other to rule over the night (moon). If they knew that the earth when viewed from the moon in the night looks very similar to the moon when viewed from the earth I believe that they would not have written that part.


Earth as viewed from the Moon during the Apollo 8 mission, Christmas Eve, 1968. Source-Wikipedia.

Okay, since the atheist cannot disprove the existence of God, all other arguments will just be non-essentials at the moment.

The atheist can not disprove the existence of God because no God has ever told the atheist that he exist, The atheist can disprove some of the assertions and evidence provided for the existence of God.

Lol, that is quite an ambitious statement.   How do you provide "empirical" evidence to "disprove" miracles? Perhaps, the reason why I was careful to select the examples already given (atheists who belief in ghosts and John Safran's exorcism) is because I'd anticipated such statements as in your quote. How do you then "emprically" explain the reality in those two examples?

If a person says that his heart disease has been healed through a miracle, doctors can check and see the process that lead to the healing, if proper medication was involved(which is always the case) then that miracle claim becomes null because we know that proper medication leads to healing of medical ailments all the time. If a person was involved in a car accident and the person says that he/she was saved by the miracle hands of angels, that claim can be checked, if the air bag and the seat belts are what saved the person from dying then that miracle claim becomes null because air bag and seat belts are meant to save lives when people are involved in accidents. The fact that there are atheist who believe in ghost does not mean that ghost are any real, This is the same as me asserting and pointing to the big bang as true because there are theist that believe in it.

Maybe, maybe not. If the basic claim so far that I've been addressing to the atheist's attention is the supernatural, has science also proven the supernatural wrong?

Science has proven some of the assertions of the supernatural to be false. The Noah's flood for example which was said to have happened with God(supernatural) taking a major role in it. There is a lot of scientific evidence to show that the claim is purely a mythical assertion. The rainbow is another example. Keep in mind that the supernatural has never made a case for its self, people tagged their experiences and what they see around them as supernatural. Those claims can be looked into and debunked scientifically where necessary. There are people that believe that evil spirits have the ability to cause diseases, science has debunked that claim.

Of course, you're right that we don't see things from the same perspective. That is why I'm presenting issues that take the atheist to where he should be met. If you were presented with such evidence as in Safran's experience, what would you say?

If I was presented with the Safrans experience and I believe it is genuine then I will reconsider my position, I don't believe the Safrans experience because I believe that he was acting up because so many people have done stuffs like that before only to confess later, others confessed on their dead beds that what they did long time ago was only a gimmick, others died without confessing but left notes, while others gimmicks were revealed by very close friends or partners involved in the gimmick. Here is what a friend said on another blog. "If God showed himself to everyone against the sky and moved the stars to form words that said, "I am the lord thy God," that would make an impression. I would say that an unequivocal miracle would be a good start. I have said before, the one thing I think would convince me is if God goes to every human at the same time, wherever they are, and tells us all something in our own language that we don't know but could verify for ourselves, like the secret to cold fusion." If any such thing happens then I will completely Change my beliefs.

This is quite amusing, please excuse me. If you were not trying to provide proof or evidence for the non-existence of God, what then do we make of your assertion that "there is no God"? Are we now to just take such statements and score them a good pass and expect nothing to prove your ground? Granted that you seek some traits to be exhibited in believers, but just what are those traits? You may have "reasons" for your disbelief; and so far what I see do not constitute any sound reason to disbelieve in the supernatural. Not being able to see some expected traits in the people you've come across does not therefore constitute a cogent argument against the supernatural.

I make my assertion only based on the evidence provided to me. No God has ever told me that he exists, people are the ones that have been telling me and based on their evidence and arguments I came to that conclusion. The bible makes a lot of promises and talks a lot about God interfering in the lives of his own(those that believe) in one way or the other that can be seen even by unbelievers so they too can know of the existing power of the Christian God. The fact that I don't see this happening in the lives of the believers is an evidence against the claims of the supernatural in this case the Christian God.

Good points you raised, but they sadly tend to what I've called the fallacious logicum. You seem to have made up some idea that Christians should be cast in a certain way, and if you don't find those features, then for you that automatically disproves the existence of God or the supernatural. I could also make up any number of fallacious logic and adduce the weakness of your disbelief - would that even come close to reality? Now, if theism claims that no theists can be affected by suffering, you might have a point in your disbelief; but does theism make such a claim as you had cast for your disbelief? No. So, where do you lead your own ideas to?

You are now beginning to sound like professor William Craig. . I did not make up the Idea that Christians should be cast in a certain way, The bible and Christians themselves make that argument most of the time quoting verses from the bible to buttress their claims. If Christianity is true then those claims should see the light of the day, the fact that I don't see those claims is an evidence against the Christian claims and a very good one. As for your last point, some sect of Christians make that claim(The prosperity preachers) I know that there is a division in theology in the Christian community with regards to that but their position is very well founded and supported by the bible. Thanks for your rejoinder, and you are also welcomed.

pilgrim.1:

@wirinet,

I used to be inclined to your idea that arguments between theists and atheists could not get anywhere. Not anymore - I'm convinced this is getting somewhere, and it should. The reason why many people still hold that idea is because they've been asking simplistic questions and dragging on to too many unrelated issues until the gist of the argument gets lost somewhere. This time around, all such unrelated arguments will be kept to the background as much as possible, while we take a different approach - that of presenting occurrences within the atheist community that atheists cannot easily dismiss out-of-hand.

We all live in a single world with varied experiences. The atheist who assumes all things must of necessity be narrowed to his naturalistic worldview must also be prepared to replicate phenomena that are well-attested to occur outside the ambit of his naturalism. This is not about the usual tireless 'prove' this and that about Christianity. No; rather, I'm asking the typical NL atheist to understand that his naturalism is a weak tool for explicating the realities of our world.

Let me ask you how far you if you have gotten anywhere since this thread started. In the three pages that have been written on this tread, have you been able to convince a single atheist that his belief and world views are wrong? Have you been able to convince any of the infallibility of your beliefs and convinced him to change over to yours, so please explain how you are getting somewhere.

Please explain how in one breadth you said that they ask simplistic questions and then say they've been asking simplistic questions and dragging on to too many unrelated issues. I think both theists and atheists agree that the complexities explaining life on earth, creation of the universe and interraction between the universe is anything but simplistic, and any attempt at its explanation would require numerous seemingly unrelated disciplines and issues.

The atheist assumes all things must of necessity be narrowed to his naturalistic worldview because this is what had allowed the human race to make the quantum lead it has achieved within the last 300 or so years. When the world assumed supernaturalistic worldview human and societal development stagnated for centuries. It is this naturalistic world view that allowed man to land on the moon (higher than the tower of Babel), Split the atom to create tremendous energy and understand the fuel burning in the sun, develop antibiotic to cure diseases and drugs to cure mental illness, crack the human genome, and lots more.

If naturalism is too weak to explicating the realities of our world, then please how supernaturalism is able to do it better. And can you use your supernatural tools to replicate the well attested phenomena, supernatural or otherwise. I honestly do not understand how you feel you have added a new insight into the age long questions of existence and all observable phenomena when you are still using the reasoning of Neanderthal man or pre-historic man. Even a bushman in the middle the Kalahari has a similar world view as you hold. All through recorded history man had held the same view you seem to have just discovered, it is the atheist world view that is very new.

Supernatural phenomena, if real have little or no effect on the world of today, science and technology has taken over according to the Naturalist worldview.

@William_c,

You are wasting you energy, the argument presented by pilgim.1 will forever be cyclic, she wants you and other atheists to accept her world view however irrational it may be to you. She keeps forgeting that her religion is first based on the assumption of the infallibility of any part of the Bible, and since atheists and other religion do not hold that view, then i do not know the common grounds for argument, same for Koran and numerous other sacred religious books. It is amazing how they take one innoculous line like "the earth is held by nothing" and build the whole laws of mechanics around that and probably relativity too, and then claim the bible is the greatest science book ever, but ignore sentences like Atlas holding the earth, or the Earth being held by pillars or even the earth having corners. ( they will say these are figurative sentences)

I have said it time and time again: RELIGIOUS ARGUMENTS ARE A WASTE OF TIME

@wirinet,

I'd like to highlight again: my approach is to engage in wholesome discussions; but if someone would be crass enough to start out with slurs, I'd then have to show a no-nonsense response.

wirinet:

Let me ask you how far you if you have gotten anywhere since this thread started. In the three pages that have been written on this tread, have you been able to convince a single atheist that his belief and world views are wrong? Have you been able to convince any of the infallibility of your beliefs and convinced him to change over to yours, so please explain how you are getting somewhere.

At least I've been able to demonstrate the fallacious logic of typical atheistic excuses. None of you have been able to adduce the sort of "evidence" for your own disbelief in precisely the same way as you demand of others. If you haven't seen this, it is because you never honestly wanted to see it. If on the other hand you have seen it, please proceed and adduce such had evidence against the existence of the supernatural in all possible worlds. I'm eagerly waiting, thank you.

wirinet:

Please explain how in one breadth you said that they ask simplistic questions and then say they've been asking simplistic questions and dragging on to too many unrelated issues. I think both theists and atheists agree that the complexities explaining life on earth, creation of the universe and interraction between the universe is anything but simplistic, and any attempt at its explanation would require numerous seemingly unrelated disciplines and issues.

In one word: the atheist cannot disprove the supernatural. Get it?

That is precisely the approach I've been proffering, because often times many atheists will make excuses that they are not asserting that "there is no God", but when closely examined, they will assert that same thing. Are you going to "prove" or "disprove" the existence of God in all possible worlds by the mechanism of Darwinian evolution? Which is why such interjections are a waste of the atheist argument, because such distractions are the very unrelated issues that tend away from the basic premise of theistic claims: the supernatural. Rather than beleaguer anyone with such non-starters, I've asked the atheist to smart up for his own inconsistencies in his naturalistic worldview. Having carefully laid out the basic premise for this and stating clearly that atheistic fallacious logicum will not wash here, I summarised the basic assumptions in 10 points.

wirinet:

The atheist assumes all things must of necessity be narrowed to his naturalistic worldview because this is what had allowed the human race to make the quantum lead it has achieved within the last 300 or so years. When the world assumed supernaturalistic worldview human and societal development stagnated for centuries. It is this naturalistic world view that allowed man to land on the moon (higher than the tower of Babel), Split the atom to create tremendous energy and understand the fuel burning in the sun, develop antibiotic to cure diseases and drugs to cure mental illness, crack the human genome, and lots more.

You're making a grave mistake, which is not surprising. You assume that atheistic naturalism is the same thing as 'science' - that is the cheapest argument of fallacious logic going in all possible worlds. This is why the very idea that the atheist must of necessity narrow all things to his naturalistic worldview is a dogma that ignores evidence for the supernatural. Rather than argue back and forth, I'm only asking the atheist to consider examples of atheist experiences that are beyond his naturalism and then adduce empirical and experimental evidence for the non-existence of the supernatural in all possible worlds. None of you guys have attempted to do so other than just wiring the same sms of excusing them out of hand.   Why is it you guys have never been able to make the same "quantum leap" to replicate the same occurences without faking anything and achieving precisely the same results within the matrix of Naturalism?

wirinet:

If naturalism is too weak to explicating the realities of our world, then please how supernaturalism is able to do it better. And can you use your supernatural tools to replicate the well attested phenomena, supernatural or otherwise. I honestly do not understand how you feel you have added a new insight into the age long questions of existence and all observable phenomena when you are still using the reasoning of Neanderthal man or pre-historic man. Even a bushman in the middle the Kalahari has a similar world view as you hold. All through recorded history man had held the same view you seem to have just discovered, it is the atheist world view that is very new.

Thank you, but I wonder if my reasoning is akin to the Neanderthal, you of all people are unable to rise to the level of what I've demonstrated. I haven't even started to assume anything, and this was why I simply asked the reader to draw his own inferences for the examples I cited already! You haven't even touched upon it and just assuming that if "all observable phenomena" are not atuned to your narrow worldview, there's going to be an eternal restlessness for your arguments.

wirinet:

Supernatural phenomena, if real have little or no effect on the world of today, science and technology has taken over according to the Naturalist worldview.

I want to see you replicate the same experiences of the supernatural as in the examples I presented. That's all, no noise or faking or foaming in the mouth.

wirinet:

@William_c,

You are wasting you energy, the argument presented by pilgim.1 will forever be cyclic, she wants you and other atheists to accept her world view however irrational it may be to you.

You're sounding like the typical loser. Where have I made a case for what you're slaving up there about? I've only taken the atheist to his own doorstep and met him where he resides - his own worldview of naturalism that by default must deny what is beyond that framework. That's all. Just because you do not and cannot explicate these issues does not mean that you have to beggar the discussion by demogoguery.

wirinet:

She keeps forgeting that her religion is first based on the assumption of the infallibility of any part of the Bible, and since atheists and other religion do not hold that view, then i do not know the common grounds for argument, same for Koran and numerous other sacred religious books. It is amazing how they take one innoculous line like "the earth is held by nothing" and build the whole laws of mechanics around that and probably relativity too, and then claim the bible is the greatest science book ever, but ignore sentences like Atlas holding the earth, or the Earth being held by pillars or even the earth having corners. ( they will say these are figurative sentences)

Oh bother! Is this the best "evidence" for your narrow naturalism?

wirinet:

I have said it time and time again: RELIGIOUS ARGUMENTS ARE A WASTE OF TIME

I wonder why you even attempted to waste your time, if that's the case. No, narrow-minded carping that sees nothing beyond your naturalism is a waste of time and resources. Ciao.

@William_C,

I think the points you're making are unnecessarily repetitious, and rather than go round in circles I'll take the essentials and draw you back to the basic premise I've presented for your consideration.

William_C:

Atheism is lack of belief in god, by god I mean the god head of the trinity as described in the bible since that is what we are talking about here. After looking at the evidence provided by those who are championing that idea I have come to the conclusion that such a god does not exist and hence my disbelief.

Atheism is not the lack of belief in God - that is a revisionist claim, and was the reason why I took the time to outline what it involves from typical atheists themselves. I've often held the view that many atheists will honestly admit that it involves the denial and/or rejection of belief in the supernatural for the simple reason that they would not ever be able to explicate what is beyond their naturalism. The "lack of belief" idea is a convenient cliché that excuses the atheist from the responsibility of investigating realities that are beyond his naturalism.

You may not believe in the arguments for the existence of God in the Biblical sense; but that does not presuppose that "there is no God". Rejecting someone's arguments does not lead to the conclusion that such a reality does not exist, because then you would be making an assertion that requires you to provide 'evidence' that no such Being exists in the entire universe. Arguments do not constitute 'proof' for your "disbelief" to then assert that "there is no God" - you only reject the arguments, which cannot then lead to the assertion that there is no God.

Indeed, this discussion in essence funnels down to just one thing, which you stated earlier:
[list]

William_C:

If concrete evidence is provided to me that shows the existence of something beyond my world view I will have no choice but to embrace it or at least reconsider my previous position.

[/list]
That is why from the onset I've approached this discussion from another perspective - to present atheists with such hard evidence of the experiences of atheists who cannot summarily dismiss the reality of the supernatural. It is not 'fallacious logicum' that is of interest here; but inspite of having obliged your request, I notice you've tacitly excused the two examples presented already (atheists who believe in spirits, and John Safran's exorcism encounter). At least, in the latter such a man testified he was not faking anything. How do you explain these realities within the matrix of your naturalism?

William_C:

The atheist can not disprove the existence of God because no God has ever told the atheist that he exist, The atheist can disprove some of the assertions and evidence provided for the existence of God.

Let's rephrase: the atheist cannot disprove the existence of God because he does not really seek to investigate the realities that are beyond his naturalism. The atheist indeed can assert that 'there is no God' and the evidence provided for the supernatural are by default excused because he has no means of explicating them within the framework of his naturalism.

William_C:

If a person says that his heart disease has been healed through a miracle, doctors can check and see the process that lead to the healing, if proper medication was involved(which is always the case) then that miracle claim becomes null because we know that proper medication leads to healing of medical ailments all the time. If a person was involved in a car accident and the person says that he/she was saved by the miracle hands of angels, that claim can be checked, if the air bag and the seat belts are what saved the person from dying then that miracle claim becomes null because air bag and seat belts are meant to save lives when people are involved in accidents. The fact that there are atheist who believe in ghost does not mean that ghost are any real, This is the same as me asserting and pointing to the big bang as true because there are theist that believe in it.

You probably find hypothetical/fictitious ideas appealing; but my question is how do you make out that "is always the case"? How do you know that ghosts are not "real"? We've moved beyond that recurring decimal now and asking the typical atheist to make informed statements that are not tending to excuses.

William_C:

Science has proven some of the assertions of the supernatural to be false. The Noah's flood for example which was said to have happened with God(supernatural) taking a major role in it. There is a lot of scientific evidence to show that the claim is purely a mythical assertion. The rainbow is another example. Keep in mind that the supernatural has never made a case for its self, people tagged their experiences and what they see around them as supernatural. Those claims can be looked into and debunked scientifically where necessary. There are people that believe that evil spirits have the ability to cause diseases, science has debunked that claim.

Please be careful what you call "science", because often is the case that many people use that word without a clue what they're talking about. The basic question here is this: has "science" proven that in all possible worlds, the supernatural does not exist? That there are no such things as 'spirits' (let alone the classification of 'evil spirits' or demons)? Have you ever given a thought as to why there are atheists who believe in "spirits"? Making such assertions as in yours is taking things for granted and excusing issues out of hand.

William_C:

If I was presented with the Safrans experience and I believe it is genuine then I will reconsider my position, I don't believe the Safrans experience because I believe that he was acting up because so many people have done stuffs like that before only to confess later,

I anticipated you, that is why I carefully left all accounts to remove your guesses about acting up or faking anything:
[list]

Safran's behaviour seemed to change; he lost his lisp, became violent and angry, and began to speak in the characters of several of the spiritual figures he investigated in previous episodes, including the voodoo spirit Papa Gede and the Hindu god Hanuman.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Larson#John_Safran.27s_Exorcism

There was none of the humour that characterised the preceding episodes. The exorcism was dramatic and realistic and no explanation was given at the end of the episode as to John's behaviour.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Safran_vs_God#Episode_Eight

Rachael Kohn: Do you think something happened?

John Safran: Well definitely like when I look back at it, I don’t remember a lot of it, and also anyone who knows me, indeed anyone who watches the show can just look at my face, and there’s just all this stuff that just doesn’t go on in any other stories, in like every other story you can see me being a bit more like conscious or pulling, you know, there’s some subtle expression on my face where you kind of know I’m being a bit whacky, and this one it’s like I just can’t act that well, basically is what I’m getting at, there’s no way I can act that well. So who knows?

Rachael Kohn: Well I was going to ask you whether you were cleansed and converted?

John Safran: I don’t know if I was converted, I think I can accept what happened there as being true and not necessarily have to say Well therefore I have to go to his branch of Christianity because like all the major faiths all go. .

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/relig/spirit/stories/s1193306.htm

[/list]

Lol, you call all that "acting up", considering the sort of personality Safran had in satirizing religion - he was acting up in Episode Eight? Man, that is a very good excuse; but one that does not address the issue intelligently. And for an atheist to go through all that as an "act" and yet admit in an interview that what happened was "true", that must indeed be some well-managed attempt of an atheist to mislead his own camp.

William_C:

I make my assertion only based on the evidence provided to me. No God has ever told me that he exists, people are the ones that have been telling me and based on their evidence and arguments I came to that conclusion.

No, you make your assertions based only on "arguments" you've encountered, not because you know for sure from your own "empirical" and experimental evidence that 'God does not exist' or there's no God anywhere in all possible worlds. No God has ever told you anything because you have not investigated the supernatural for yourself. You cannot make conclusive assertions as "there is no God" based merely on arguments, because that is neither a scientific nor empirical statement.

William_C:

The bible makes a lot of promises and talks a lot about God interfering in the lives of his own(those that believe) in one way or the other that can be seen even by unbelievers so they too can know of the existing power of the Christian God. The fact that I don't see this happening in the lives of the believers is an evidence against the claims of the supernatural in this case the Christian God.

Have you observed this same scenario in every place and at every time in the history of Christian people? Not seeing something happen does not constitute "evidence", lol. Such onomatomania (evidence, proof, fact, verification, etc) are often used by people who rarely understand their nature. How do you adduce that 'not seeing' something necessarily contitute "evidence" against that thing? If, in simplistic arguments, I were to say that I don't see you, does that constitute "evidence" that you don't exist? I don't think your argument is tackling issues cogently as not to fall under fallacious logic.

William_C:

You are now beginning to sound like professor William Craig. . I did not make up the Idea that Christians should be cast in a certain way, The bible and Christians themselves make that argument most of the time quoting verses from the bible to buttress their claims. If Christianity is true then those claims should see the light of the day, the fact that I don't see those claims is an evidence against the Christian claims and a very good one. As for your last point, some sect of Christians make that claim(The prosperity preachers) I know that there is a division in theology in the Christian community with regards to that but their position is very well founded and supported by the bible. Thanks for your rejoinder, and you are also welcomed.

Lol, the accolade is flattering. . but no, I'm not making a Craig type of argument here. The Bible is not polarized towards the idea you cast, and there are many verses to clarify that issue on either side.

However, I haven't seen good grounds for your disbelief that necessitates the assertion that "there is no God". Your position could be summarized as below:

● I don't see something - therefore that is "evidence" it does not exist

● Something does not turn out my way - therefore that is "evidence" it's not possible

● I reject the arguments of some people - therefore that is "evidence" for my disbelief

None of these kinds of fallacious logicum constitutes "evidence" for an assertion as in yours that 'there is no God'.

To reiterate, the basic premise we both are working out is this: "the evidence that shows the existence of something beyond your world view" - and that's what I'd like you to constantly keep in mind.

Repetitious arguments back and forth do not constitute "evidence" - and that is why I've gone beyond such arguments to provide you the "something" that is beyond your worldview. It will not do to excuse or summarily dismiss them out of hand. You would need to provide empirical and experimental evidence that in all possible worlds the supernatural does not exist. At least, I've been selective to show you that it does (in the experiences of atheists themselves); you need to go beyond sentiments and excuses to show by experimental evidence that the experiences of those atheists are misplaced and you can replicate them and achieve the exact same results every single time - no drama or faking anything, just as Safran did not fake anything. Failing to do so would only render your assertion indefensible.

Much regards.

I just took a look at the john safran story and it hardly demonstrates anything out of ordinary.
I mean there numerous natural explanations first and foremost he could be faking it probably to hype and increase sales. Do you have hard evidence he's telling the truth?
He could also have been druged,hypnotised or have induced psychosis or hallucinations- there are countless possibilities.

If there is a supernatural realms, then the important questions we should be attempting to address are:

1) How do we come to know about it?

2) Does the supernatural interact with the natural? Does the supernatural force influence, control and modify the natural? If it does, by what mechanism?

3) Can the natural, in turn control, influence and modify the supernatural realm?

Tùdor:

I just took a look at the john safran story and it hardly demonstrates anything out of ordinary.
I mean there numerous natural explanations first and foremost he could be faking it probably to hype and increase sales. Do you have hard evidence he's telling the truth?
He could also have been druged,hypnotised or have induced psychosis or hallucinations- there are countless possibilities.

@Tùdor,

The sort of skepticism you offer has been made endless times by Safran's fans or admirers at the Yahoo! "Cult of Safran" web group. These chaps often fail to see how weak and tenuous their arguemnts are, because what they are saying has been clearly refuted by Safran himself. There were no acting-ups, faking anything, hypnosis or hallicunations by drugs and all the other so-called countless possibilities. Besides, he could not have been looking for "increased sales" effects, he was already successful in his media business and was well-known as a satirist of such religious matters. I've left the relevant posts and links for you guys to see that none of these excuses tessellate with Safran's statements to the contrary during the interview. Besides, what would an atheist be doing faking things up to fool his atheist and skeptic admirers? Why would an atheist be "acting-up" merely for the 'increased sales' effect? I don't see how these excuses constitute cogent empirical evidence within the matrix of Naturalism against the "acting-up" of Safran in that event.

huxley2:

If there is a supernatural realms, then the important questions we should be attempting to address are:

1) How do we come to know about it?

2) Does the supernatural interact with the natural? Does the supernatural force influence, control and modify the natural? If it does, by what mechanism?

3) Can the natural, in turn control, influence and modify the supernatural realm?

These questions have been asked in various ways, and I've addressed them back to the atheists. You guys are not getting away on the cheap bus by asking others to address your worry. The basic approach here is this: if the supernatural does not exist in all possible worlds, what do you do with those cases where atheists themselves are telling us such things about what is beyond naturalism?

__________

Added:

I'd like to see clear statements that are beyond excuses. I worry about the excuses so far to wash away these examples, which even at the onset I explained at the basic level are not the more cogent examples that tend to my appeal. Someone raised the objection offline about that, and now I hope he can see why I only left it there as so for the atheist to make comments. Now the gentleman can confirm my guess that all we may read from the atheist are excuses - despite the fact that Safran himself did not make such excuses but affirmed and authenticated his experiences.

I'll be back later to see if anyone has made a more substantial point.

huxley2:

If there is a supernatural realms, then the important questions we should be attempting to address are:

1)  How do we come to know about it?

2)  Does the supernatural interact with the natural?  Does the supernatural force influence, control and modify the natural?  If it does, by what mechanism?

3)  Can the natural, in turn control, influence and modify the supernatural realm?

pilgrim.1:

These questions have been asked in various ways, and I've addressed them back to the atheists. You guys are not getting away on the cheap bus by asking others to address your worry. The basic approach here is this: if the supernatural does not exist in all possible worlds, what do you do with those cases where atheists themselves are telling us such things about what is beyond naturalism?

Is this some sort of avoidance strategy?

What kind of statement is this?

pilgrim.1:

if the supernatural does not exist in all possible worlds, what do you do with those cases where atheists themselves are telling us such things about what is beyond naturalism?

Not only does it not make sense, it is diversionary.   My earlier comments address the question of whether a supernatural realm exist,  NOT what some atheists think.   We have discussed this many times here - atheism by itself DOES NOT address the existence or non existence of the supernatural.  Atheism address the existence/non-existence of god(s) and beliefs thereof.

So when I ask a question about the existence (or non)  of the supernatural realm, I expect an HONEST answer to address just that, the supernatural.   There are many millions of atheists who are also supernaturalists and irrationalists.   Why should I listen to these atheists when they have not justified their prior beliefs in the existence of the supernatural?

pilgrim.1:


__________

Added:

I'd like to see clear statements that are beyond excuses. I worry about the excuses so far to wash away these examples, which even at the onset I explained at the basic level are not the more cogent examples that tend to my appeal. Someone raised the objection offline about that, and now I hope he can see why I only left it there as so for the atheist to make comments. Now the gentleman can confirm my guess that all we may read from the atheist are excuses - despite the fact that Safran himself did not make such excuses but affirmed and authenticated his experiences.

I'll be back later to see if anyone has made a more substantial point.

You have posited the existence of a supernatural realm.  Don't you think you owe it to your discussants and yourself to justfy this position first?   How do you distinguish the supernatural from the not-understood-yet-but-natural?

Who the hell is safran? There are millionaires who shoplift, religious leaders who lie and fornicate even anti-gay crusaders who're gay. . . .you talk as if safran is the holy and sinless messiah.
Bottomline as long as he's human, we CAN'T take his word for it. If you have any other proof bring it not bringing claims lie prone men.

Tùdor:

Who the hell is safran? There are millionaires who shoplift, religious leaders who lie and fornicate even anti-gay crusaders who're gay. . . .you talk as if safran is the holy and sinless messiah.
Bottomline as long as he's human, we CAN'T take his word for it. If you have any other proof bring it not bringing claims lie prone men.

Are you suggesting that Safran is one of the millionaires who shoplifts? That would be a queer way to dismiss an atheist, you know. He didn't seem to have started out as a religious zealot who tried to peddle his own religiousity to anyone - quite the contrary: he set out to discredit any religious reality, but "gets his comeuppance, he meets his Nemesis" (in the words of the Rachael Kohn). I'm not taking his word for it - I plainly explained myself in that regard, that such was 'not one of the cases to "prove" or "disprove" anything (at least, not for me)'. Rather than getting overheated and making excuses, please provide a naturalistic explanation that has some more substance.

huxley2:

Is this some sort of avoidance strategy?

What kind of statement is this?

That's not any avoidance strategy - I already explained that any atheistic fallacious logicum will be thrown out of this thread outrightly if you guys fail to discuss reasonably. Questions have been proffered, I've addressed them reasonably - and only after doing so did I offer these examples to point out the one thing that is cogently encapsulated in William_C's response: to provide "the evidence that shows the existence of something beyond your world view". This typical atheistic reaction that 'the atheist assumes all things must of necessity be narrowed to his naturalistic worldview' is being addressed by the few examples that challenge that idea. Rather than keep making excuses for them, I'd like to see something more cogent and forthcoming that explicates these experiences among atheists themselves. So far, what we've been seeing in typical atheist responses are reactive excuses. That won't do, sorry.

huxley2:

Not only does it not make sense, it is diversionary. My earlier comments address the question of whether a supernatural realm exist, NOT what some atheists think.

My apologies - your earlier comments excused them, not addressed them. That is why I've been careful in being selective about the examples I proffer - those involving atheists themselves. Discrediting them out of hand with fallacious logic which are mere excuses are not to be mistaken as addressing them. The problem is not mine or any theist's - the problem is yours and those of the atheist's whose experiences in this regard you think nothing of.

huxley2:

We have discussed this many times here - atheism by itself DOES NOT address the existence or non existence of the supernatural. Atheism address the existence/non-existence of god(s) and beliefs thereof.

What cacophony is this? On the one hand, atheism does not address something; and on the other hand, atheism addresses that same thing? I'm sorry hxley2, but this is not helping you make an intelligent case. let me help you see the lightbulb, if you may.

The approach in my discussions here is to meet the atheist right on his doorstep. I've not sought to affirm anything about Christian theism - that is why so far I've been pointing to affirmations among ATHEISTS themselves. That's all.

● it was from atheists that I drew the fact that -
atheism is 'extended to the the lack of a belief in
any supernatural entity or substance'.

● it was from atheists also that I drew the fact that -
an atheist could say: 'I know atheists who still believe in spirits'

● it was not from a religious zealot that I drew the fact that -
one who set out to satirize and discredit the supernatural
met his comeuppance, such that he affirms:
'I can accept what happened there as being true'

I wasn't proffering examples of claims by theists or religious people, but those which have come from the lips of atheists themselves. Reacting unnecessarily and saying nothing of substance is not helping your narrow naturalism. If these things are not so, the atheist would have more credit to go out and both investigate and replicate them (without faking or acting-up) with the tool of his own naturalism; only after then would his statements be credible beyond mere excuses. However, if the normative is rather to be reactive and tersely dismissive, then one wonders if those same atheists affirming these things are worth any credit at all - I mean, why would any atheist be playing these games of fallacious logic and confusing his own atheistic camp?

huxley2:

So when I ask a question about the existence (or non) of the supernatural realm, I expect an HONEST answer to address just that, the supernatural.

I've provided an honest answer by proffering examples from ATHEISTS themselves. You just don't care to look at them and make informed statements about the experiences of such atheists. If in all possible worlds there is nothing like the supernatural - such as in the experiences of these atheists - it is then not enough to excuse them, but be more credible to provide experimental evidence to show the case so that atheists would not be left scratching their heads as to why their fellows believe in the very things that their atheism rejects in the first place.

huxley2:

There are many millions of atheists who are also supernaturalists and irrationalists.

huxley2:
Why should I listen to these atheists when they have not justified their prior beliefs in the existence of the supernatural?

Oh dear me! I can't believe that came right outa ya mouth! Okay, you at least know that there are millions of ATHEISTS who are aware of the "supernatural" (nevermind their being "irrationalists" - and how have your excuses thus far helped them to understand that their belief in such entities are MISPLACED? You only assume that they had a "prior beliefs" in the existence of the supernatural - how do you know for certain that such is the case? Again, wouldn't it be queer indeed that these ATHEISTS are still "atheists" while yet believing in such phenomena as the supernatural that is beyond their naturalism?

Lol, huxley2, you guys have no argument at all. Thus far your excuses are just that - excuses. I deliberately approached this discussion by pointing to the experiences and affirmations of atheists because I bet 10-out-of-10 all we shall ever read from you guys on Nairaland are excuses and reactive dismissals that say absolutely nothing. If the "millions" of atheists out there affirm a belief in the "supernatural" (the very thing that your type of atheism rejects breezily), one wonders how it is that you guys have yet to help them investigate such and explained to them the realities of those phenomena within the matrix of atheistic naturalism. Talk is cheap - go out there, investigate them, replicate the same results without faking or cheating or doctoring anything, and help those millions of atheists to understand their mispalced and "unjustified" affirmations in the supernatural. Until then, nothing from the atheistic fallacious logicum will do.

Cheers.

Oh please!
I've mentioned some naturalistic explanations above including he might be lying or faking it. These are true possiblities you conviniently fail to acknowledge. I'm sure if your pastor who you respect and believe in so much reverts and says theres no god and all the miracles,teachings are false,you'd definately brand him a liar.

huxley2:

pilgrim.1 link=topic=279631.msg3989401#msg3989401 date=1244365896:

__________

Added:

I'd like to see clear statements that are beyond excuses. I worry about the excuses so far to wash away these examples, which even at the onset I explained at the basic level are not the more cogent examples that tend to my appeal. Someone raised the objection offline about that, and now I hope he can see why I only left it there as so for the atheist to make comments. Now the gentleman can confirm my guess that all we may read from the atheist are excuses - despite the fact that Safran himself did not make such excuses but affirmed and authenticated his experiences.

I'll be back later to see if anyone has made a more substantial point.

You have posited the existence of a supernatural realm.  Don't you think you owe it to your discussants and yourself to justfy this position first?

@huxley2,

Indeed, I've posited the existence of a supernatural realm (or reality); and yes, I think it's contigent upon me to justify that position - which is what I'm doing. The only difference here is my approach, which is --

     ● to start first by examining the framework of atheism as it works out for
        most atheists; such a supposition sees atheism as -
        'generally extended to the lack of a belief in any supernatural entity
        or substance' (including ghosts, spirits, souls, angels, demons, etc).

     ● following that, I proceeded to exemply the case of those ATHEISTS who
        are convinced that such entities actually exist, even though their reality
        does not change them from being atheists. The point is that these folks
        are not denying or rejecting that such things exist; rather, they are also
        asking questions and seeking answers:
        "how can this be explained? i really don't know, and its sad that a
        television show can bring evidence forth that questions my "faith" in atheism."

     ● as a consequence, I'm seeking intelligent answers as well from atheists -
        those who are convinced that everything must be "narrowed" down to
        naturalism. These fellows who be able to proffer intelligent answers that
        would explain the fact of these other atheists that have experienced the
        phenomena they affirm. Rather than being reactive, if nothing of substance
        is forthcoming to explicate them, such exculpations cannot serve as
        rational "evidence" that those phenomena do not exist.

     ● going on from there, I hope to look in more detail at even more engaging
       experiences from atheists themselves that answer to such requests as in
       William_C's appeal: '
       the evidence that shows the existence of something beyond your world view'
       as well those experiences from people who are not self-identified as either
       theists or atheists.

In following this approach, it becomes clear that no one is making any denial about these things having occured except those whose comments thus far have been reactive without adducing any substance that explicate why or how those experiences among such atheists are misled. It is not enough or even sensible to just react and excuse them; we'd like to see more cogent empirical evidence that satisfactorily explain that in all possible worlds, there is no such thing as a realm beyond the worldview of naturalism. This is the terrible mistake that you assume when you say:

huxley2:

How do you distinguish the supernatural from the not-understood-yet-but-natural?

The bias here is that you have already reached a conclusion even before embarking on any empirical investigation or falsifiability. How do you know for certain that in all possible worlds, these phenomena are "natural"? If they are, as you assume, why has it been so difficult or even elusive to the atheist naturalist to replicate them and achieve the same results within the matrix of his own naturalism? This is why again I've only proffered the examples of these atheists and wait to see how you may prove their non-existence in contrast to the fact that no one has denied their existence?

Tùdor:

Oh please!
I've mentioned some naturalistic explanations above including he might be lying or faking it. These are true possiblities you conviniently fail to acknowledge. I'm sure if your pastor who you respect and believe in so much reverts and says theres no god and all the miracles,teachings are false,you'd definately brand him a liar.

Lol, Tùdor. . . why the continued silly exculpations? What has anyone's pastor got to do with an issue that your excuses have not addressed cogently? What "naturalistic explanations" have you given other than the same roundabout 'guesses' that he "might" be anything from a fake to a liar? If in all these (which I've repeatedly said are not my own appeal), someday he claims he's been faking or lying - who's hurt more than the atheists who fawn at his anti-religious satires? It would not be to the atheist's credit that he lied and faked all that, even gave an interview to affirm them as "true", allow so much time to pass as he left his atheist crowd bemused and confused. . and then confess his duplicity on his death bed, would it?

What really have all the atheist excuses on these examples established?

Naturalistic explanation? O.k he's lying,it don't get more natural than that does it?

Tùdor:

Naturalistic explanation? O.k he's lying,it don't get more natural than that does it?

Does lying mean the same as 'naturalistic explanation'? Was that why he went through all that experience - just to LIE? That would be a queer way for an atheist to investigate any phenomenon. Could you do better than that?

No matter how queer it may sound its entirely possible. People lie for different reasons some very bizzare.

Tùdor:

No matter how queer it may sound its entirely possible. People lie for different reasons some very bizzare.

@Tùdor,

You're absolutely right - there are people who go to great lengths to lie in one way or another, and they're on every side (whether religious or non-religious). I didn't ignore that possibility at all. However, what I've been trying to present all along is the fact that there are pointers to phenomena that naturalism has no answers to. A whole lot of atheists who reject the supernatural are increasingly noting these permutations and seeking answers even from the most brilliant minds within their camp. What gets many of them angry is the way their fellow atheists summarily dismiss these phenomena without saying anything cogent. I know, because I've been keenly following these developments; and if anyone's interested I could share many pages of these on the Forum, even from the latest happenings in cutting edge scientific enquiry.

All the same, thank you for your considerations.

pilgrim.1:

You have posited the existence of a supernatural realm.  Don't you think you owe it to your discussants and yourself to justfy this position first?

@huxley2,

Indeed, I've posited the existence of a supernatural realm (or reality); and yes, I think it's contigent upon me to justify that position - which is what I'm doing. The only difference here is my approach, which is --

     ● to start first by examining the framework of atheism as it works out for
        most atheists; such a supposition sees atheism as -
        'generally extended to the lack of a belief in any supernatural entity
        or substance' (including ghosts, spirits, souls, angels, demons, etc).

     ● following that, I proceeded to exemply the case of those ATHEISTS who
        are convinced that such entities actually exist, even though their reality
        does not change them from being atheists. The point is that these folks
        are not denying or rejecting that such things exist; rather, they are also
        asking questions and seeking answers:
        "how can this be explained? i really don't know, and its sad that a
        television show can bring evidence forth that questions my "faith" in atheism."

     ● as a consequence, I'm seeking intelligent answers as well from atheists -
        those who are convinced that everything must be "narrowed" down to
        naturalism. These fellows who be able to proffer intelligent answers that
        would explain the fact of these other atheists that have experienced the
        phenomena they affirm. Rather than being reactive, if nothing of substance
        is forthcoming to explicate them, such exculpations cannot serve as
        rational "evidence" that those phenomena do not exist.

     ● going on from there, I hope to look in more detail at even more engaging
       experiences from atheists themselves that answer to such requests as in
       William_C's appeal: '
       the evidence that shows the existence of something beyond your world view'
       as well those experiences from people who are not self-identified as either
       theists or atheists.

In following this approach, it becomes clear that no one is making any denial about these things having occured except those whose comments thus far have been reactive without adducing any substance that explicate why or how those experiences among such atheists are misled. It is not enough or even sensible to just react and excuse them; we'd like to see more cogent empirical evidence that satisfactorily explain that in all possible worlds, there is no such thing as a realm beyond the worldview of naturalism. This is the terrible mistake that you assume when you say:

The bias here is that you have already reached a conclusion even before embarking on any empirical investigation or falsifiability. How do you know for certain that in all possible worlds, these phenomena are "natural"? If they are, as you assume, why has it been so difficult or even elusive to the atheist naturalist to replicate them and achieve the same results within the matrix of his own naturalism? This is why again I've only proffered the examples of these atheists and wait to see how you may prove their non-existence in contrast to the fact that no one has denied their existence?

This is no way to argue a point as you have NOT engaged any of the questions I asked, but you keep harping on about the beliefs of some atheists.  Look at my questions again.  Does the word "atheists" or "atheism" appear anywhere in my questions?   These are the questions again;

huxley2:


If there is a supernatural realms, then the important questions we should be attempting to address are:

1)  How do we come to know about it?

2)  Does the supernatural interact with the natural?  Does the supernatural force influence, control and modify the natural?  If it does, by what mechanism?

3)  Can the natural, in turn control, influence and modify the supernatural realm?

4) How do you distinguish the supernatural from the not-understood-yet-but-natural?

Am I asking about atheism or the beliefs of some atheist here ? And, PLEASE, if you are going to respond to this, do everyone a favour and avoid using the words "atheists"/"atheism" just for once, although I appreciate just how hard this concept is for you.

@huxley2,

huxley2:

This is no way to argue a point as you have NOT engaged any of the questions I asked, but you keep harping on about the beliefs of some atheists. Look at my questions again. Does the word "atheists" or "atheism" appear anywhere in my questions? These are the questions again;

You may assume I haven't engaged any of your questions because you probably didn't care to take a close look at my premise. Your response is absolutely NO way to dialogue when you assume such an attitude. The words atheists/atheism may not appear in your question, but are they not directly inferred by naturalism or 'natural'? You kid yourself so many times about simplistic fallacies, huxley2. I've said time and again that you guys should pay close attention to the approach in this discourse rather than assume a conclusive bias in your worldview that by default sees everything as within the dictum of naturalism.

huxley2:

Am I asking about atheism or the beliefs of some atheist here ?

It appears without question that you were inferring atheism in your approach, which is why I'd keep throwing that ideology out until you come to common terms. I asked you pointedly: 'How do you know for certain that in all possible worlds, these phenomena are "natural"?' Does it not appear that you've already drawn a conclusive bias and then hope to lead the discussion back to your own worldview? Lol, I'm not that gullible, you know.

pilgrim.1:

@huxley2,

It appears without question that you were inferring atheism in your approach, which is why I'd keep throwing that ideology out until you come to common terms. I asked you pointedly: 'How do you know for certain that in all possible worlds[/b], these phenomena are "natural"?' Does it not appear that you've already drawn a conclusive bias and then hope to lead the discussion back to your own worldview? Lol, I'm not that gullible, you know.

1) How could my questions have implied atheism, when we are agreed that atheism is NOT a commitment to the existence or non-existence of the supernatural. Atheism is neutral about this. There are millions of atheists around the world who are also supernaturalist. So how does my asking questions about the supernatural realm implied that I am advocating atheism?

2) "How do you know for certain that in all possible worlds, these phenomena are "natural"? Where have I said or implied this? I submit to you that I have NOT.

If these questions are too hard for you, allow me to summarise them in one all-embracing question;

Is there an objective epistemic methodology for distinguishing the natural from the supernatural?

So far, from what I have read from you, it is the following:

1) Anything that cannot be explained using currently available scientific knowledge or tools is supernatural.

Now, is this true or not?

@huxley2,

huxley2:

1) How could my questions have implied atheism, when we are agreed that atheism is NOT a commitment to the existence or non-existence of the supernatural. Atheism is neutral about this.

I beg to say I don't believe you. Atheism has been repeatedly expressed in terms of the need to disprove the supernatural: hence, its commitment to the worldview that expresses the non-existence of the supernatural. You cannot make a redaction of what atheism is, such as that it is "neutral". If indeed neutrality is your basic assumption, why are atheists driven by the need to disprove that same point about the supernatural? Could I remind you of what I observed from a typical atheist website? Here again:

        Atheism by strict definition is the lack of a belief in gods, but it's generally
        extended to the lack of a belief in any supernatural entity or substance.
        That includes ghosts, spirits, souls, angels, demons, vampires, elves,
        boogeymen, unicorns, phoenixes and the energies of karma, chi, the Holy Spirit,
        life-force or The Force. [here].

Is atheism "neutral" about what it categorically rejects?

huxley2:

There are millions of atheists around the world who are also supernaturalist. So how does my asking questions about the supernatural realm implied that I am advocating atheism?

In the first instance, I wonder why you tacitly never attempted to provide answers from such atheists who tend to supernaturalism. I don't have to be an atheist to be able to make sense from what most atheists are inclined to - which is why I go straight to them, meet them right at their front door, and patiently seek to understand how they explicate their own worldview(s). To this end, I made clear that I'm willing to allow most atheists the freedom to hold whatever views of their own type of atheism as best defines it for them - not that you come on board to tell us that ATHEISM is this, that or something else we never heard of. At best, your atheism is yours, and does not define it so for millions of other atheists.

Second, your asking questions about the supernatural is welcome; but any thinker could see you'd already assumed a conclusive bias that all phenomena should be "natural". My question then is this: if anyone is going to help you at all, how do you know for sure that nothing other than what is NATURAL is the only phenomena that exists in all posible worlds?

huxley2:

2) "How do you know for certain that in all possible worlds, these phenomena are "natural"? Where have I said or implied this? I submit to you that I have NOT.

Dear huxley2, please don't try to amuse me. What did you mean by "the not-understood-yet-but-natural?" Even if you seem to go soft on that (I may allow it), it would have helped if you clarified what you meant by 'the not-understood-yet-but-natural' to distinguish it from any other concepts you had in mind.

huxley2:

If these questions are too hard for you, allow me to summarise them in one all-embracing question;

No, they're not difficult. Were mine too difficult you simply returned with no answers and just kept recycling yours?

huxley2:

Is there an objective epistemic methodology for distinguishing the natural from the supernatural?

Possibly. The basic point is: do you take the view that every phenomena in all posiible worlds must of necessity be narrowed to naturalism? Either way (yes or no), why?

huxley2:

So far, from what I have read from you, it is the following:

1) Anything that cannot be explained using currently available scientific knowledge or tools is supernatural.

Now, is this true or not?

No, that is not what I've claimed or inferred. In contrast, I'm asking you to use the same "available scientific knowledge or tools" to explicate those phenomena that even other atheists have acknowledged lie beyond their atheistic naturalism. Is that too hard to understand? It is not as if they do not exist - since they cannot be denied either by theists or atheists, how does naturalism explicate them?

@huxley2 (and any atheist who might be interested),

Let me outline what I mean by this 'elusive approach' (as one of my 'friends' called it). It's because I'm very interested in continuing this dialogue that I would once again attempt to make things simple.

1. The basic premise:
If you notice, the basic premise in my discussions funnels down to just one thing, which has well been captured in William_C's oft-repeated quote: to present some kind of "evidence that shows the existence of something beyond your world view''. As a necessary assumption therefore, I understand that 'naturalism' is the underlying principle in the atheism of many people. This is exemplified in wirinet's assertion earlier that: "the atheist assumes all things must of necessity be narrowed to his naturalistic worldview". That is the very thing I'm challenging by the various posts submitted so far.


2. 'Fallacious logicum'
This term was repeatedly used in my various posts, not in a derisive manner (I apologise if read so), but in such a way as to show my disinterest in recycled and retired styles of arguments that many people (religious and non-religious) are used to. I noted that point earlier in saying -

        This type of logic tends to point accusing fingers at other beliefs as the basis
        for one's own 'disbelief'. The funny thing is that we all use this type of logic in
        common debates - Christians against Muslims; atheists against theists;
        democrats against republicans; liberals against conservatives; etc. [here]

I also explained the weakness in such logic ('logicum' as referring to the plural of all and any forms of this of logical fallacy). Again, while making clear that such tendencies would be rejected in our discussions, I would be moving on from there to more cogent dialogue to take the discussion right up to the front door of the atheist and meet him on his own ground, one-to-one.


3. Atheistic Logic
To that end, I would not use Christian theism as the basis of my argument, since the basic outlook of many atheistic logic is simply defined in terms of the "need to disprove" the belief of theists. Such atheistic logic was laid bare in my reply to William_C:

       ● I don't see something - therefore that is "evidence" it does not exist

       ● Something does not turn out my way - therefore that is "evidence" it's not possible

       ● I reject the arguments of some people - therefore that is "evidence" for my disbelief

Of course, any thinker would immediately see the fallacy in such types of wasteful arguments that only weaken the position of the person using them; and it also reveals the intellectual laziness of such debaters.


4. The real questions
Of the myriad of questions about the realities of our world, the concerns between theism and atheism could be contained in just two possible terms: naturalism and superturalism. Just what then lies at the base of these concerns? Quoting our friend again:

          "science has proved religion wrong"

For me, an atheist making this sort of brash assertion simply has no clue what he seeks to argue, more so because he probably has no idea about what is the basic claim of 'religion' (or theism). If one asks: what then is the basic claim of theism, at least in my own worldview? My answer is simple: the very thing that atheism rejects - the supernatural reality. Such a premise at its most basic level would be asking questions such as:

        ●  is there a reality beyond naturalism?

        ●  is there any possibility of the existence of such things as
            ghosts, souls, spirits, etc?

        ●  is there a reality that survives death?
            (another way os asking that question is:
            is there LIFE after death?

        ● what are the implications for atheistic naturalism if -
           theism is proven right about the existence of such realities?
     
Underlying these enquiries is the huge question of HOW we investigate these phenomena. It is not so much about excusing, denying or rejecting them out of hand; but rather, the attempt to investigate if such phenomena exist; and if so, how to understand and appreciate the fact of their reality.


5. The Atheist Dilemma
For the atheist who has a tribal loyalty to his naturalism, what would be the implications of discovering that these phenomena exist and cannot be denied? What happens upon discovering that there is indeed evidence of "something beyond his worldview"? Give them whatever term you may - ghosts, souls, spirits, etc, - it does not disprove their existence, but rather confirms them. Indeed, his huge problem would be to find a way to "explain" them within the permutations of his naturalism; but that would present two further problems for the typical atheist -

      (a) he would have to admit that science has NOT "proved" religion wrong

      (b) naturalism as a worldview is insufficient and limp in explicating the realities
           of all possible worlds and existence.


These are the premises in my discussions - to take the real questions and concerns of the day to the front door of the atheist and meet him on his own ground, one-to-one. The outcome is not to make atheism look stupid in their eyes (that would make me a victim of my own fallacious logicum); rather, to show that theism (even my Christian theistic worldview) has a legitimate and satisfying claim for what is beyond the naturalism of atheism. Thus - Why I Am Not An Atheist.

. . . continued:

After having perused the gist of atheistic type of arguments, logic, back-and-forths, I noted summarily the essential features in 10 points:

[list]1. not all atheists have the same outlook on the world

2. some atheists tend to believe in what 'strict atheism' rejects or denies

3. we may allow any atheist to choose what best describes his/her worldview

4. we haven't found any 'proof' or 'evidence' for most atheist assertions

5. atheism means more than the simplistic definition held by the average typical atheist

6. atheism does not "disprove" theistic claims

7. naturalism alone does not satisfactorily explain the realities of our knon world

8. naturalism is also a belief-system that holds dogmatic assertions

9. most atheists do not have a good grasp about the issues they tend to argue

10. fallacious logicum is at the root of many atheistic arguments.[/list]

These are the reason for my disinclination to recycled and retired styles of atheistic logical fallacy of the atheist throwing questions and never seeking to address any himself. By citing two exemples, I try to satisfy the basic atheistic enquiry: to provide "evidence that shows the existence of something beyond your world view". That said and done, the atheist's job is to explain the nature of such phenomena - not deny, excuse, prevaricate, or scurry/circle round these examples.

. . . cont.

pilgrim.1:

huxley2 link=topic=279631.msg3993372#msg3993372 date=1244451335:

Is there an objective epistemic methodology for distinguishing the natural from the supernatural?

Possibly. The basic point is: do you take the view that every phenomena in all posiible worlds must of necessity be narrowed to naturalism? Either way (yes or no), why?

To give an example:

Take the question of the possibility of life after death - such that "something" survives the death of a person. Could it be a 'ghost, spirit, soul', etc - expressions which the atheist naturalist is not inclined to. Is it possible to determine by some way or the other that our humanity is not all merely 'material' that lies within the physical plane? I believe so - and the necessary question arises: HOW could we investigate such phenomena?

The naturalist would put this question in another way: "Is there an objective epistemic methodology for this kind of investigation and falsifiablity?"

My answer is "Possibly". So what do I have in mind. Here's an example that lays out this approach:

            Victor Zammit:   Materializations of David Thompson
            (http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=AU&hl=en-GB&v=6nPe7vK8kCg)

Please observe: I referred to the example above only for the sake of how to conduct such research - not to "prove" theism. Mr Zammit (a retired Autrlian lawyer) notes that he is not into religion, but tries to investigate and present the "evidence for the after life". How does he go about this? There are certain elements in his methodology:

              -  objectivity

              -  repeatability

              -  scientific method

What were they after? Ectoplasm - (spiritualism) a substance supposed to emanate from the body of the medium during a trance. He notes that results obtained from David Thompson's materializations are "real". But you should at least see the vid clip for yourself (Mr Zammit only recounts his findings, no scenes of actual ectoplasmic activity).

The point in all this is simple: when some atheists are presented with such "evidence" of what is beyond their naturalism, what would they do with such evidences? Deny them? Excuse them? Dismiss them? Of do the sane thing any objective 'scientist'  would do - investigate them and see if indeed such realities exists: spirits emanating from physical bodies! It's lazy intellectualism to speak all the grammar of naturalism as an armchair atheist and never take the step to investigate these phenomena.

It's not that these realities are "non-existent" - no one who objectively looks at the evidence would be brash to deny or dismiss them. The basic assumption is that "spirits" actually do exist, attested by the fact that they can emanate from physical bodies as in the supposed experiements in David Thompson's materializations. It is not a question of denying them simply because some naturalists feel threatened that their devotion to naturalism is threatened thereby. Such investigations only seek to provide answers to the following questions, if nothing else:

                --  Is there a reality that survives death?

                --  Do spirits exist?

                --  What are the implications for the atheist naturalist?

Now, if spirits survive death and thus can be proven that such phenomena exist, does that not answer the question of 'Why I Am Not An Atheist'? The atheist who denies such entities cannot plead "neutrality" here - because he's been gambling with a reality that will be a rude awakening for people who discover only too late! Such atheists are flirting with a dangerous dogmaticism in naturalism that is illogical and only limp in the face of these realities. Sorry folks, I do not have the faith to be an atheist! QED.

pilgrim.1:

. . . cont.

Possibly. The basic point is: do you take the view that every phenomena in all posiible worlds must of necessity be narrowed to naturalism? Either way (yes or no), why?

To give an example:

Take the question of the possibility of life after death - such that "something" survives the death of a person. Could it be a 'ghost, spirit, soul', etc - expressions which the atheist naturalist is not inclined to. Is it possible to determine by some way or the other that our humanity is not all merely 'material' that lies within the physical plane? I believe so - and the necessary question arises: HOW could we investigate such phenomena?

The naturalist would put this question in another way: "Is there an objective epistemic methodology for this kind of investigation and falsifiablity?"

My answer is "Possibly". So what do I have in mind. Here's an example that lays out this approach:

Victor Zammit: Materializations of David Thompson
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=AU&hl=en-GB&v=6nPe7vK8kCg)

Please observe: I referred to the example above only for the sake of how to conduct such research - not to "prove" theism. Mr Zammit (a retired Autrlian lawyer) notes that he is not into religion, but tries to investigate and present the "evidence for the after life". How does he go about this? There are certain elements in his methodology:

- objectivity

- repeatability

- scientific method

What were they after? Ectoplasm - (spiritualism) a substance supposed to emanate from the body of the medium during a trance. He notes that results obtained from David Thompson's materializations are "real". But you should at least see the vid clip for yourself (Mr Zammit only recounts his findings, no scenes of actual ectoplasmic activity).

The point in all this is simple: when some atheists are presented with such "evidence" of what is beyond their naturalism, what would they do with such evidences? Deny them? Excuse them? Dismiss them? Of do the sane thing any objective 'scientist' would do - investigate them and see if indeed such realities exists: spirits emanating from physical bodies! It's lazy intellectualism to speak all the grammar of naturalism as an armchair atheist and never take the step to investigate these phenomena.

It's not that these realities are "non-existent" - no one who objectively looks at the evidence would be brash to deny or dismiss them. The basic assumption is that "spirits" actually do exist, attested by the fact that they can emanate from physical bodies as in the supposed experiements in David Thompson's materializations. It is not a question of denying them simply because some naturalists feel threatened that their devotion to naturalism is threatened thereby. Such investigations only seek to provide answers to the following questions, if nothing else:

-- Is there a reality that survives death?

-- Do spirits exist?

-- What are the implications for the atheist naturalist?

Now, if spirits survive death and thus can be proven that such phenomena exist, does not answer the question of 'Why I Am Not An Atheist'? The atheist who denies such entities cannot plead "neutrality" here - because he's been gambling with a reality that will be a rude awakening for people who discover only too late! Such atheists are flirting with a dangerous dogmaticism in naturalism that is illogical and only limp in the face of these realities. Sorry folks, I do not have the faith to be an atheist! QED.

YOU THIS PROF. NAWAO. TRUST YOU ARE WELL?