toneyb:

OK, fair enough I understand the point you are trying to make.

No worries.

toneyb:
Where did I say that? I am not dismissing their claims, I never did. I said that these are phenomena that need to be explored and studied deeply so that they could be understood and explained like every other occurrence that was once thought to be a supernatural event has like rainbow, earth quake, lighting, diseases and volcanoes.

Okay, still the same thing, really. My apologies if I misread you (I'm willing to grant you that); but that was what you reply seems to have sugested to me. Which was why I was asking the atheist naturalist that, instead of denying that such things exist or occur, perhaps the better thing to do was investigate them in other to make informed statements in explicating their nature. It is one thing for someone to deny the existence of something supernatural; quite another thing to say we do not understand their nature at present. You see where I'm coming from now?

toneyb:
_{Why do you like running away from questions pilgrim 1}. You are a very Interesting person I must say.

What questions?

pilgrim.1:

No worries.

OK

Okay, still the same thing, really. My apologies if I misread you (I'm willing to grant you that); but that was what you reply seems to have sugested to me. Which was why I was asking the atheist naturalist that, instead of denying that such things exist or occur, perhaps the better thing to do was investigate them in other to make informed statements in explicating their nature. It is one thing for someone to deny the existence of something supernatural; quite another thing to say we do not understand their nature at present. You see where I'm coming from now?

Sure I do and I completely agree with you.

What questions?

In what way does the supernatural interfere or interact with the natural? How do we know that it is the supernatural and can you give me an empirical example of the supernatural at work?

@ Pilgrim

I will leave you to pls educate and at thesame torture the likes of Huxley, Noetics etc but the problem is they will still be left even more confused .

Tùdor:

@skyone
it would had been better if you didn't post at all. . .people are having a sensible debate and you just barge in with senseless rubbish.
Whats the meaning of your post? Next time cross check b4 you start embarrasing yourself on NL.

highly fallible and low insight for details equals a typical confused man,

and i'm afraid that's what you are.

Skyone You are a foolish man,why mention noetic, is he an atheist?

Tùdor:

Skyone You are a foolish man,why mention noetic, is he an atheist?

Noetic hides behind the facade of lies, distortions and irrational-claims only to turn around and accuse others of doing that which he has masterfully been doing.

pilgrim.1:

If atheism is not contigent on naturalism, what is its contingency? Please just let me know that one, and then we can take it from there.

Atheism is not contingent on Naturalism as these are two different philosophical positions.  Atheist arguments from time immemorial have been contingent on pure a priori reasoning.  Take for instance Epicurus's arguments about the problem of evil:

"Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?  Epicurus

This is simple a priori reasoning and uses none of the tenets of science, but is such an effective argument no theists have been able to address it satisfactorily.

In fact, in pre-scientisfic societies, many of the arguments againsts theism (by implication for atheism)  were contingent on such a priori reasoning and on simple logic and coherence. Arguments like:

1)  How to tell which god(s) amongst all the various gods was/were the true god.

2) Arguments for incoherence and inconsistency of the message of god

3) The problem of evil (which I referred to above)

4) The ontological arguments

5) Arguments from the hiddenness of god(s)

etc, etc, etc.

Non of these arguments are contingent on naturalism, or on science, yet they are very effective arguments.   So to say atheism is contingent on naturalism (or science) is simply wrong for one can be an atheist without having a clue about science.  Epicurus and the epicureans were atheists with little or no knowledge of the knowledge that science gives.

Now, modern atheists are in the fortunate position in that they can now add the results of scientific methods to their arsenal of arguments against theism.  To paraphrase Dawkins, "Science has made is possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist".

pilgrim.1:

Please stay focused - we're done with that non-starter. Naturalism is a doctrine, and we've been through that in several other threads. The first time I pointed it out, you got riled up, remember?

On what contingency, huxley2?

Absolutely, naturalism is a DOCTRINE, in the general philosophical sense of the word doctrine, according to which a doctrine is a point of view.  But there is a difference between naturalism and religion or supernaturalism.

Religions and supernaturalisms tend to be dogmatic in their approach to explaining the nature of reality.  They have a prescribed dogma, adherence to which is required for votaries of the religion.  Few religions, in any, change their position in the light of better evidence.  This is dogmatism.

Let me test out your level of dogmatism with the following question:

Would you change your positions with regards to the resurrection of Jesus if his bones were discovered in some grave today and it was proven BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that these bones belonged to Jesus?


YES or NO?  (I know this is a hypothetical question, but it is also a simple question which should admit of a simple answer)

pilgrim.1:

I could very well say so, because that is what MANY PEOPLE say when self-identified as atheists.  I gave you wirinet's example earlier to buttress this point, and if you have quarrels with that, then please address you ire accordingly towards wirinet. This is why again I said that many atheists do not have a clue what they're arguing.

Who are these many people?  Face up to the arguments I put to you and leave the subjective stuff like "many atheists do not have a clue what they're arguing".  Why you you think you have a clue and others do not?  Address the arguments and let them speak for themselves.  I have warned you before about your tendencies to dwell on personalities - this is not a way of argumentation.

pilgrim.1:

Atheism is NOT science; and whatever adjective you add to it or not does not take away from the basic premise. If your atheism is not contingent on naturalism, please tell us what it is contigent upon.

Who said atheism is science?  Who implied atheism is science.  Why did you have to say that?  This is the sort of mischaracterisation is has become a habit with you, and it smacks of dishonesty.

toneyb:

In what way does the supernatural interfere or interact with the natural? How do we know that it is the supernatural and can you give me an empirical example of the supernatural at work?

Okay, my apologies where I might've missed that (those) question(s).


(1) In what way does the supernatural interfere or interact with the natural?

In so far as there are known natural laws, phenomena that lie beyond the norms of these said laws are commonly referenced as 'supernatural'. In my discussions, drawing from the inference so given by many atheists themselves, I'm looking at some of the phenomena at the basic level where they have identified such things as 'spirits' (among several others) as examples.

Perhaps, the twist the discussion necessarily assumed was about the definition of terms. To wit, the concern has lately been about what is said to be a 'natural law' (or 'law of nature') in our context. First off, I do not presently use it in context of this type of "Natural law". Rather, in consistency with the general concern, it is in terms of what is usually known as "Physical law". Perhaps some excerpts in the latter may be helpful -

[list]A physical law or scientific law is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior (i.e. the law of nature). Laws of nature are observable. Scientific laws are empirical, describing the observable laws. Empirical laws are typically conclusions based on repeated scientific experiments and simple observations, over many years, and which have become accepted universally within the scientific community. The production of a summary description of our environment in the form of such laws is a fundamental aim of science.

Laws of nature are distinct from religious and civil law, and should not be confused with the concept of natural law. Nor should 'physical law' be confused with 'law of physics' - the term 'physical law' usually covers laws in other sciences (e.g. biology) as well. [see Wikipedia][/list]

It is in this context that we have been trying to come to a common ground as to what is 'Nature', 'natural', and 'supernatural'. In contrast, therefore, to what is known as 'physical law', the common understanding of the 'supernatural' is as described thus:

[list]The term supernatural or supranatural (Latin: super, supra "above" + natura "nature" pertains to an order of existence beyond the scientifically visible universe. Religious miracles are typically supernatural claims, as are spells and curses, divination, the belief that there is an afterlife for the dead, and innumerable others. Supernatural beliefs have existed in many cultures throughout human history.

Characteristic for phenomena claimed as supernatural are anomaly, uniqueness and uncontrollability, thus lacking reproducibility required for scientific examination. Supernatural themes are often associated with paranormal and occult ideas, suggesting for possibility of interaction with the supernatural by means of summoning or trance for instance. [again, Wikipedia][/list]

Therefore, the question comes to fore: does the supernatural interact with the natural? Indeed, it does - for if it doesn't, there would be no way of even knowing that the supernatural existed in the first place. It is not so much about whather such phenomena exist, but rather that their existence or occurence point to demonstrate what is lacking reproducibility required for scientific examination.

Then to the second part of that question: in what ways does the supernatural interact with the natural? I do not know precisely in what ways such occurences or interractions could be determined - for the one reason that such phenomena are understood to have the properties of 'anomaly, uniqueness and uncontrollability'. However, some 'supernatural' phenomena have been observed; and because they do not always tend to the same deterministic properties, it would be flirting with fantasy to make simplistic dry-and-cut rules about their nature.



(2) How do we know that it is the supernatural . .?

Based on the disntictions enunciated above between what is considered to pertain to 'physical law' and how that differs from the 'supernatural', each case can be delineated for what they are.



(3)  . .  and can you give me an empirical example of the supernatural at work?

It would be difficult (not impossible) to give such examples. However, if I should give just about any examples of "empirical" cases, would I not be contradicting the very distinctions highlighted above? Here again:

       (a) on the one hand:
             Laws of nature are observable.
             Scientific laws are empirical, describing the observable laws.

       (b) on the other hand:
             The term supernatural . . pertains to an order of existence
             beyond the scientifically visible universe - they are characteristic of
             anomaly, uniqueness and uncontrollability, . .
             thus lacking reproducibility required for scientific examination.

If there are observable phenomena that exist, the fact that these phenomena lack 'reproducibility required for scientific examination' does not in anywise mean that they do not exist. The examples already cited (Zammit's examination of David Thompson's materialization) does not mean that the materialization does not exist simply because it might be anomalous, unique and possesses uncontrollability. It only would tessellate with the fact of its existence rather than the empirical determination of such a phenomena.

skyone:

@ Pilgrim

I will leave you to pls educate and at thesame torture the likes of Huxley, Noetics etc but the problem is they will still be left even more confused .

Lol, educate - yes; torture, I don't know. And perhaps, noetic would not be tortured, as he shares the same concerns as we do.

huxley2:

Atheism is not contingent on Naturalism as these are two different philosophical positions.  Atheist arguments from time immemorial have been contingent on pure a priori reasoning.

The best you can say is that your atheism is not contigent on naturalism. Even so, that is a difficult one to take in, as the strain in your arguments thus far are tending to the very thing you tried to dissociate yourself from.

huxley2:

Take for instance Epicurus's arguments about the problem of evil:

"Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?  Epicurus

Such a priori arguments do not establish anything for atheism nor the fact that there is a supernatural reality.

huxley2:

This is simple a priori reasoning and uses none of the tenets of science, but is such an effective argument no theists have been able to address it satisfactorily.

You're skewing away from the basic premise I have repeatedly simplified for discussants like you. No atheist on Nairaland has a clear grasp on his philosophical assumption - I havent seen any as yet. Many of you guys talk about philosophy/philosophical and yet are very far from the meaning of that term. Can you maintain focus and not reharsh deflections in this thread, hmm?

huxley2:

In fact, in pre-scientisfic societies, many of the arguments againsts theism (by implication for atheism)  were contingent on such a priori reasoning and on simple logic and coherence. Arguments like:

1)  How to tell which god(s) amongst all the various gods was/were the true god.

2) Arguments for incoherence and inconsistency of the message of god

3) The problem of evil (which I referred to above)

4) The ontological arguments

5) Arguments from the hiddenness of god(s)

etc, etc, etc.

etc. . . etc. . . etc. How have they dismissed the basic claim of theism: the supernatural - the very thing that many people's atheism reject out of hand? Such unphilosophical lagical fallacies are the things I outlined as unnecessary repetitions. These repetitions do not establish anything for atheism - NOTHING at all.

huxley2:

Non of these arguments are contingent on naturalism, or on science, yet they are very effective arguments.   So to say atheism is contingent on naturalism (or science) is simply wrong for one can be an atheist without having a clue about science.  Epicurus and the epicureans were atheists with little or no knowledge of the knowledge that science gives.

I'm not the one cross-breeding atheism with science - that infact is the very fallacy that I've been trying ever so many times to expose. So, glad to know you stated the highlighted part - so that any atheist assuming a reference (directly or indirectly) to the idea that atheism = science is making a non-starter.

huxley2:

Now, modern atheists are in the fortunate position in that they can now add the results of scientific methods to their arsenal of arguments against theism.  To paraphrase Dawkins, "Science has made is possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist".

Dawkins has his onions confused - we all know that. I hope you won't start yelling out of breath if I constantly reference him for typical atheistic hollow assumptions? In other ways, it does not take any intellectual gymnastics to understand that science has also made it possible for one to be an intellectually fulfilled theist.

huxley2:

Absolutely, naturalism is a DOCTRINE, in the general philosophical sense of the word doctrine, according to which a doctrine is a point of view.  But there is a difference between naturalism and religion or supernaturalism.

Oh, impress me!   I wonder why you nearly shot down the roof the first time I brought that to your notice! Lol, huxley2 dear. . . make we discuss, not dance around, eh?

huxley2:
Religions and supernaturalisms tend to be dogmatic in their approach to explaining the nature of reality.  They have a prescribed dogma, adherence to which is required for votaries of the religion.  Few religions, in any, change their position in the light of better evidence.  This is dogmatism.

Is atheism not as dogmatic? Oh yes, I already saw this point and noted in my brief 10 points:

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

I deliberately used the term "naturalism" instead of "atheism", because the former is what undergirds many atheist positions. Whether I used 'atheism' instead of 'naturalsim' makes absolutely no difference in that observation.

huxley2:

Let me test out your level of dogmatism with the following question:

Would you change your positions with regards to the resurrection of Jesus if his bones were discovered in some grave today and it was proven BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that these bones belonged to Jesus?

YES or NO?  (I know this is a hypothetical question, but it is also a simple question which should admit of a simple answer)

Absolutely NO. Hypothetical or not, I'm a dogmatist in thsi regard and offer no apologies for it. If there are atheists who think it their birthright to be as dogmatic and unyielding, why should I owe any atheist a baulk for my own worldview?

huxley2:

Who are these many people?  Face up to the arguments I put to you and leave the subjective stuff like "many atheists do not have a clue what they're arguing".  Why you you think you have a clue and others do not?  Address the arguments and let them speak for themselves.  I have warned you before about your tendencies to dwell on personalities - this is not a way of argumentation.

I've been addressing your arguments and questions. I don't see you do the same. My observations stand as they are until I see a change to move me to strike a number of them out.

huxley2:

Who said atheism is science?  Who implied atheism is science.  Why did you have to say that?  This is the sort of mischaracterisation is has become a habit with you, and it smacks of dishonesty.

Uhm, did you not just refer to Dawkins? He makes his atheism seem like it is equal to science. You may not like that, but it's not my call.

pilgrim.1:

etc. . . etc. . . etc. How have they dismissed the basic claim of theism: the supernatural - the very thing that many people's atheism reject out of hand? Such unphilosophical lagical fallacies are the things I outlined as unnecessary repetitions. These repetitions do not establish anything for atheism - NOTHING at all.

Are really serious? Are you having a dichotomy between the supernatural and a particular god say the bible god? What are you defending here pilgrim 1?

toneyb:

Are really serious?

What troubles you about the highlighted in my quote?

toneyb:

Are really serious? Are you having a dichotomy between the supernatural and a particular god say the bible God? What are you defending here pilgrim 1?

One thing, as already observed: the very thing that atheism unintellectually rejects out-of-hand - the supernatural.

pilgrim.1:

What troubles you about the highlighted in my quote?

pilgrim.1:

etc. . . etc. . . etc. How have they dismissed the basic claim of theism: the supernatural - the very thing that many people's atheism reject out of hand? Such unphilosophical lagical fallacies are the things I outlined as unnecessary repetitions. These repetitions do not establish anything for atheism - NOTHING at all.

Are they unphilosophical and logical fallacies because pilgrim1 says they are? How are they logical fallacies and how do not not establish anything for atheism at all?

pilgrim.1:

What troubles you about the highlighted in my quote?

One thing, as already observed: the very thing that atheism unintellectually rejects out-of-hand - the supernatural.

Are you running round a circle? Didn't you just tell me a while ago that there are atheist that believe in the supernatural?

pilgrim.1:

The best you can say is that your atheism is not contigent on naturalism. Even so, that is a difficult one to take in, as the strain in your arguments thus far are tending to the very thing you tried to dissociate yourself from.

Such a priori arguments do not establish anything for atheism nor the fact that there is a supernatural reality.

You're skewing away from the basic premise I have repeatedly simplified for discussants like you. No atheist on Nairaland has a clear grasp on his philosophical assumption - I havent seen any as yet. Many of you guys talk about philosophy/philosophical and yet are very far from the meaning of that term. Can you maintain focus and not reharsh deflections in this thread, hmm?

etc. . . etc. . . etc. How have they dismissed the basic claim of theism: the supernatural - the very thing that many people's atheism reject out of hand? Such unphilosophical lagical fallacies are the things I outlined as unnecessary repetitions. These repetitions do not establish anything for atheism - NOTHING at all.

I'm not the one cross-breeding atheism with science - that infact is the very fallacy that I've been trying ever so many times to expose. So, glad to know you stated the highlighted part - so that any atheist assuming a reference (directly or indirectly) to the idea that atheism = science is making a non-starter.

Dawkins has his onions confused - we all know that. I hope you won't start yelling out of breath if I constantly reference him for typical atheistic hollow assumptions? In other ways, it does not take any intellectual gymnastics to understand that science has also made it possible for one to be an intellectually fulfilled theist.

Oh, impress me!   I wonder why you nearly shot down the roof the first time I brought that to your notice! Lol, huxley2 dear. . . make we discuss, not dance around, eh?

Is atheism not as dogmatic? Oh yes, I already saw this point and noted in my brief 10 points:

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

I deliberately used the term "naturalism" instead of "atheism", because the former is what undergirds many atheist positions. Whether I used 'atheism' instead of 'naturalsim' makes absolutely no difference in that observation.

[size=18pt]Absolutely NO. Hypothetical or not, I'm a dogmatist in thsi regard and offer no apologies for it. If there are atheists who think it their birthright to be as dogmatic and unyielding, why should I owe any atheist a baulk for my own worldview?[/size]

I've been addressing your arguments and questions. I don't see you do the same. My observations stand as they are until I see a change to move me to strike a number of them out.

Uhm, did you not just refer to Dawkins? He makes his atheism seem like it is equal to science. You may not like that, but it's not my call.

I gave given you the various a priori arguments for atheism (or against theism).  Non of these is a PROVE for the non-existence of god, but they are evidence, when taken collectively makes the case for the Judeo-Christian conceptualisation of God improbable.

I should really rest my case here as there no point debating with a ABSOLUTE DOGMATIST as you declare yourself to be.  I don't know of any atheist who will not change their position upon being given uncontrovertible evidence for God.  If you know of any, please I would like to see what they said.  Here are some of the comments that I know some prominent atheist have made, which for them would prove uncontrovertibly that there is a god and they would change their position.

1)  If bad things only happen to bad people. (May have been Victor Stenger or Sam Harris)

2)  If there was a loud voice from the sky declaring that he was god. (I think this was Christ Hitchens)

3)  If he see a large deposit in his bank account (Woody Allen, slight tongue-in-cheek)

There are many more but I cannot think of who or what they said right now.  My position is closer to 1) above.

There is no point in debating an ABSOLUTE DOGMATIST like yourself, for absolute dogmatist is the pinnacle of benightedness.  I am glad you have admitted to your dogmatist.

I rest my case.

Tùdor:

Skyone You are a foolish man,why mention noetic, is he an atheist?

Tudor big head with no brain,

Honestly your post sounded exactly when baba john would want to yap at ojuelegba bustop not very far from the bridge (Unfortunately baba John died of chronic brain disorder, hence we're in yoruba)

toneyb:

Are you running round a circle? Didn't you just tell me a while ago that there are atheist that believe in the supernatural?

You give me more reasons to believe you never read this thread at all. I drew my premise for engaging in thos discussion from what atheists argue by themselves. Many atheists are unaware that some atheists believe in the very thing that atheism rejects: the supernatural. What that means for them, I have also explained and given examples. Others, like huxley2 who does not believe in the supernatural, has been genial enough to acknowledge that he's aware some atheists believe in the superntural. The question is: why do these atheists believe in the superntural rather than remain in their position of rejecting any and everything that atheism rejects? I'm not unaware of these issues; and have shown that many typical atheis websites reject (if not deny) any belief in the supernatural. How does that turn you spinning on the same spot?

pilgrim.1:

Lol, educate - yes; torture, I don't know. And perhaps, noetic would not be tortured, as he shares the same concerns as we do.

Pilgrim,

Noetic is typical Chinese man i think is conning us and i'm now suspecting him, you be on a watch on his next post. In fact that's how Mr Huxley started before he finally got confused.

huxley2:

I gave given you the various a priori arguments for atheism (or against theism).  Non of these is a PROVE for the non-existence of god, but they are evidence, when taken collectively makes the case for the Judeo-Christian conceptualisation of God improbable.

Improbable is not the same thing as a categorical "there is NO God". Such semantics do not "PROVE" anything for your own atheism nor any one else's.

huxley2:

I should really rest my case here as there no point debating with a ABSOLUTE DOGMATIST as you declare yourself to be.  I don't know of any atheist who will not change their position upon being given uncontrovertible evidence for God.

You have not given me that "uncontrovertible evidence for God" - you bring it forth, rather than using the usual atheistic logical fallacy to adduce "proof" for scoring cheap. I remain as dogmatic as Dawkins et al and owe no one any apology. You never considered atheists who are as dogmatic, but you have problems with a theist being equally dogmatic. Please amuse me more.

huxley2:

If you know of any, please I would like to see what they said.  Here are some of the comments that I know some prominent atheist have made, which for them would prove uncontrovertibly that there is a god and they would change their position.

1)  If bad things only happen to bad people. (May have been Victor Stenger or Sam Harris)

Don't you see the crass in these cheap new atheist arguemnts? How does bad things happening to bad people "prove" either way anything for atheism or theism? This is the funny thing about you guys - you circulate other unintellectual atheistic clichés and end up making yourselve the victims of other people's arguments.

huxley2:

2)  If there was a loud voice from the sky declaring that he was god. (I think this was Christ Hitchens)

Yeah, I know that one. Already self-defeating - for typically, such atheists having run out of steam would make some conclusive-bias upon which they would sit cozy and not bulge if someone presents observable evidence for the supernatural. It's like a self blindfolded chap who refuses to take the blindfold off and screams: "if there is no light penetrating my blindfold, I refuse to believe in any alight at all!"  Don't make me laugh hard, huxley2. You're not scoring cheap, you hear? I knew all these logical fallacies are typical of many atheists, and that's why I summarised such self-defeating arguements in three points:

       ● 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

Lol, you guys never cease to amaze me in confirming your simplistic atheistic logical fallacies.  The remarkable thing is that you confirm such fallacies repeatedly and consistently!

huxley2:

3)  If he see a large deposit in his bank account (Woody Allen, slight tongue-in-cheek)

Lol, as above! Three points again:

       ● 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

huxley2:

There are many more but I cannot think of who or what they said right now.  My position is closer to 1) above.

Like I said: "3. we may allow any atheist to choose what best describes his/her worldview". I respect your position, huxley2 - and would allow you to hold whatever you're closest to. However, that in itself does not predispose any atheist to assume his worldview has any substance in itself - especially since we started out with the premise you identified of a "need to disprove" other people's belief.

huxley2:
There is no point in debating an ABSOLUTE DOGMATIST like yourself, for absolute dogmatist is the pinnacle of benightedness.  I am glad you have admitted to your dogmatist.

I rest my case.

I make no apologies for my position, because I don't see the dogmatism of some other atheists any better. Nor have you provided any such grounds for me to reconsider my position - which would make me a victim of your own fallacy. Sorry, I'm not that gullible. It's pure comedy to assume that I would yield my grounds on the fallacy of your mere hypothesis - wait, and your wait will be long and hard!

skyone:

Pilgrim,

Noetic is typical Chinese man i think is conning us and i'm now suspecting him, you be on a watch on his next post. In fact that's how Mr Huxley started before he finally got confused.

Okay. Lol. . . if you say so.

Skyone,you okay?. . .Who the hell is baba john? What does he have to do with this discussion? My goodness!

Tudoor:

Skyone,you okay?. . .Who the hell is baba john? What does he have to do with this discussion? My goodness!

your replica

pilgrim.1:

Improbable is not the same thing as a categorical "there is NO God". Such semantics do not "PROVE" anything for your own atheism nor any one else's.

You have not given me that "uncontrovertible evidence for God" - you bring it forth, rather than using the usual atheistic logical fallacy to adduce "proof" for scoring cheap. I remain as dogmatic as Dawkins et al and owe no one any apology. You never considered atheists who are as dogmatic, but you have problems with a theist being equally dogmatic. Please amuse me more.

You seem to like to use the terminology "logical fallacy", probably thinking that you would impress or intimidate your readers.  But it is obvious that you do NOT know the meaning of this terminology.  The is no such thing as an "atheistic logical fallacy" amongst the class of formally recognised set of logical fallacies.  Of course, you are welcome to introduce a new logical fallacy if non of the existing ones quite address the issue you are addressing.

Can you define what an "atheistic logical fallacy" is, and why it fails to meet the rules of logic?


To further show just how ignorant you are, let me give you Dawkin's position, as describe in his book, The God Delusion. He defines a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 being Absolute certainty that there is a God and 7 Absolute certainty that there is no God, Pages 50 and 51.

He defines himself as being on level 6, which means "Very Low Probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there'"

Does this sound to you like a dogmatist?    I would have been surprised but I have come to learn that Your Ignorance knows no bounds, and as a result of your religiously derived benightedness, seek to malign the character of people and/or misrepresent them.

@huxley2,

I knew somehow na shakara you dey do all this while, that's why I like to draw you in and waste your shakara. Glad to see you had not rest your case and want to be smarted yet again. School up.

huxley2:

You seem to like to use the terminology "logical fallacy", probably thinking that you would impress or intimidate your readers.  But it is obvious that you do NOT know the meaning of this terminology.  The is no such thing as an "atheistic logical fallacy" amongst the class of formally recognised set of logical fallacies.  Of course, you are welcome to introduce a new logical fallacy if non of the existing ones quite address the issue you are addressing.

if anyone was intimidated, it should clearly read: you. I clearly explained what I meant, and also pointed it out as a reminder when it was obvious that some like you probably didn't even take a good look. From all points considered, your complaint here is rather comical, for it should be clear I used "atheistic" as a qualifier (adjectivally) rather than giving an encyclopedia quote. If you had a clue about the "class of formally recognised set of logical fallacies", you'd not have been making the same repetitious arguments that go nowhere.

huxley2:

Can you define what an "atheistic logical fallacy" is, and why it fails to meet the rules of logic?

I just explained myself . . AGAIN . .  above.

huxley2:

To further show just how ignorant you are, let me give you Dawkin's position, as describe in his book, The God Delusion. He defines a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 being Absolute certainty that there is a God and 7 Absolute certainty that there is no God, Pages 50 and 51.

Oh amuse me the more. You obviously are as ignorant as your pretences. Is his own position any less dogmatic? So, what am I to do with his arbitrary scale?

huxley2:

He defines himself as being on level 6, which means "Very Low Probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there'"

That is as dogmatic, huxley2. Someone who does not know would truly live his life as one who is not sure - more correctly an agnostic, not a "de facto atheist". An agnostic is not one that wants to push his dogmatism against theism; and I'm really sorry you're making matters worse for your own arguments. I hope you'd stand to defend his "de facto atheism" when I point you to his unintellectual crap?

huxley2:

Does this sound to you like a dogmatist?    I would have been surprise but I have come to learn that Your Ignorance knows no bounds, but as a result of your religiously derived denightedness seek to malign the character of people and/or misrepresent them.

I entertained you thus far on the assumption that you might surprise me with a spark of your pretended intelligence - I was wrong. If you only understood yourself, you probably would have made it easier for others to discuss with you. I don't do prisoners, huxley2, and i've said earlier on that my response would be a no-nonsense approach when you guys deviate from what is being discussed to unnecessary distractions.

pilgrim.1:

@huxley2,

I knew somehow na shakara you dey do all this while, that's why I like to draw you in and waste your shakara. Glad to see you had not rest your case and want to be smarted yet again. School up.

if anyone was intimidated, it should clearly read: you. I clearly explained what I meant, and also pointed it out as a reminder when it was obvious that some like you probably didn't even take a good look. From all points considered, your complaint here is rather comical, for it should be clear I used "atheistic" as a qualifier (adjectivally) rather than giving an encyclopedia quote. If you had a clue about the "class of formally recognised set of logical fallacies", you'd not have been making the same repetitious arguments that go nowhere.

I just explained myself . . AGAIN . .  above.

Oh amuse me the more. You obviously are as ignorant as your pretences. Is his own position any less dogmatic? So, what am I to do with his arbitrary scale?

That is as dogmatic, huxley2. Someone who does not know would truly live his life as one who is not sure - more correctly an agnostic, not a "de facto atheist". An agnostic is not one that wants to push his dogmatism against theism; and I'm really sorry you're making matters worse for your own arguments. I hope you'd stand to defend his "de facto atheism" when I point you to his unintellectual crap?

I entertained you thus far on the assumption that you might surprise me with a spark of your pretended intelligence - I was wrong. If you only understood yourself, you probably would have made it easier for others to discuss with you. I don't do prisoners, huxley2, and i've said earlier on that my response would be a no-nonsense approach when you guys deviate from what is being discussed to unnecessary distractions.

Can you show me any of the atheists argumenst that is constructed along these lines?

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.

huxley2:

Can you show me any of the atheists argumenst that is constructed along these lines?

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.

Gladly.

Please go back to the very page where you might've copied that from, and you'd see a link that takes you to the relevant page for such an argument. You'll see the link there as -[list]

Such atheistic logic was laid bare in my [size=14pt]reply[/size] to William_C:

[/list]

When you get to the relevant page, you'd read where I quoted William_C in saying that:
[list]

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.

[/list]

And yet another: in one of wirinet's reply, you find he (or she) had argued:[list]

Let me tell to the process of believing in anything. First you get a piece of information, either directly ( first hand account) or indirectly, you compare the information with your own store of information (what you accept to be possible) and personal experience (belief system). If the said information agrees largely with your own belief system, you take the story as true, but if the information given is either insufficient or contradicts with your own store of experience and stored information, you reject the whole story.

[/list]

Compare:

   (a) 'If the said information agrees largely with your own belief system' =
         then take as 'true';

   (b) 'if the information given contradicts with your own store of experience' =
         then reject the whole story.

The above is coming from an . . . atheist?


Now huxley2, do these examples (besides several others) not answer your query? Can we move on beyond your needless repetitions, sir?

pilgrim.1:



Gladly.

Please go back to the very page where you might've copied that from, and you'd see a link that takes you to the relevant page for such an argument. You'll see the link there as -[list][/list]

When you get to the relevant page, you'd read where I quoted William_C in saying that:
[list][/list]

And yet another: in one of wirinet's reply, you find he (or she) had argued:[list][/list]

Compare:

   (a) 'If the said information agrees largely with your own belief system' =
         then take as 'true';

   (b) 'if the information given contradicts with your own store of experience' =
         then reject the whole story.

The above is coming from an . . . atheist?


Now huxley2, do these examples (besides several others) not answer your query? Can we move on beyond your needless repetitions, sir?

OK, let me start with this:

Let me tell to the process of believing in anything. First you get a piece of information, either directly ( first hand account) or indirectly, you compare the information with your own store of information (what you accept to be possible) and personal experience (belief system). If the said information agrees largely with your own belief system, you take the story as true, but if the information given is either insufficient or contradicts with your own store of experience and stored information, you reject the whole story.

Before, I start, let me say that I agree with the main thrust of the comment, although I would have worded it differently to make it more precise.

I put it to you that everybody does this - you do that, atheist, theists, scientist, etc, etc. Ignoring the few loose words, what is wrong with that comment?

Supposing I said the following to you:

I have just seen Jesus walking on the street past my front door.

Would you accept this as true or false and how you came to your conclusion? How is that different from the comment above.

Now supposing I were to say instead;

I have just seen a man survive unaided for 1 year without a heart.

Would you accept that as true or false and how did you go about arrive at your decision?

@huxley2,

huxley2:

OK, let me start with this:

Welcome, anytime.

huxley2:

Before, I start, let me say that I agree with the main thrust of the comment, although I would have worded it differently to make it more precise.

There's no need to word it differently - because it is self-defeating. Why? Because I already made clear that "empirical verification and falsifiability have nothing to do with anyone's worldviews or belief system".

huxley2:

I put it to you that everybody does this - you do that, atheist, theists, scientist, etc, etc. Ignoring the few loose words, what is wrong with that comment?

Apart from showing what was wrong with that comment (as above), I also recognize that everybody argues in that manner. We all do this - and that point was well carried in my statement discussing fallacious logicum earlier that:[list]

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

[/list]

huxley2:

Supposing I said the following to you:

I have just seen Jesus walking on the street past my front door.

Would you accept this as true or false and how you came to your conclusion? How is that different from the comment above.

It is different from the above because that is a statement that has not materialized into an argument. If I were to then take it as an argument, I would first have to ask if it was "constructed along the lines" of the same weakness I observed earlier - basically, just because I have not experienced 'Jesus walking on the street past my front door' does not make your claim a "false" or an "impossible" one. Nor can I say that it is "true" - and independent of anyone's worldview(s) (mine included), your claim stands on its own merit and not on whether or not you're an atheist or I am a Christian theist.

huxley2:

Now supposing I were to say instead;

I have just seen a man survive unaided for 1 year without a heart.

Would you accept that as true or false and how did you go about arrive at your decision?

Again, the same thing as in my reply just above. In real terms, neither of us has seen a man survive a year without a heart; at best, we could only make assumptions on the "norms" that people cannot survive without a functional heart. Taking that as our preconceived assumption (which is not unfounded), we progress to look at our immediate world through the scope of that concept.

Now, just imagine that the statement "I have just seen a man survive unaided for 1 year without a heart" then becomes an argument for informed deductions? Someone comes along and makes another statement:

     'Well, I know of someone who has survived without a heart for several months.'

Ordinarily, we might start out asking all sorts of questions; but the immediate reaction of some of us would be to bellow: "impossible!" Over and against such a reaction would be the simple questions:

       ~  How?

       ~  Who?

       ~  Where?

But the fellow calmly points us to reports such as these:

       US teen lives 118 days without heart

                   or -

        American Teenager Survives 4 Months Without Heart  (Medical News Today)


The basic thing here is that neither you, nor I nor even the gentleman who reported it to us were at the scene to witness the event for ourselves. But whatever our worldviews or preconceptions, it would not affect the report in any degree as to the fact that such even occured. I hope this helps?

pilgrim.1:

@huxley2,

Welcome, anytime.

There's no need to word it differently - because it is self-defeating. Why? Because I already made clear that "empirical verification and falsifiability have nothing to do with anyone's worldviews or belief system".

Apart from showing what was wrong with that comment (as above), I also recognize that everybody argues in that manner. We all do this - and that point was well carried in my statement discussing fallacious logicum earlier that:[list][/list]

It is different from the above because that is a statement that has not materialized into an argument. If I were to then take it as an argument, I would first have to ask if it was "constructed along the lines" of the same weakness I observed earlier - basically, just because I have not experienced 'Jesus walking on the street past my front door' does not make your claim a "false" or an "impossible" one. Nor can I say that it is "true" - and independent of anyone's worldview(s) (mine included), your claim stands on its own merit and not on whether or not you're an atheist or I am a Christian theist.

Again, the same thing as in my reply just above. In real terms, neither of us has seen a man survive a year without a heart; at best, we could only make assumptions on the "norms" that people cannot survive without a functional heart. Taking that as our preconceived assumption (which is not unfounded), we progress to look at our immediate world through the scope of that concept.

Now, just imagine that the statement "I have just seen a man survive unaided for 1 year without a heart" then becomes an argument for informed deductions? Someone comes along and makes another statement:

     'Well, I know of someone who has survived without a heart for several months.'

Ordinarily, we might start out asking all sorts of questions; but the immediate reaction of some of us would be to bellow: "impossible!" Over and against such a reaction would be the simple questions:

       ~  How?

       ~  Who?

       ~  Where?

But the fellow calmly points us to reports such as these:

       US teen lives 118 days without heart

                   or -

        American Teenager Survives 4 Months Without Heart  (Medical News Today)


The basic thing here is that neither you, nor I nor even the gentleman who reported it to us were at the scene to witness the event for ourselves. But whatever our worldviews or preconceptions, it would not affect the report in any degree as to the fact that such even occured. I hope this helps?

I have managed to demonstrated that your a a man.

huxley2:

I have managed to demonstrated that your a a man.

How?

pilgrim.1:

How?

Exactly, that is the manner of your argumentation.  You state an adhoc fact, and you claim that it MUST be so, because you have stated it.

Just look at your last but one post.

1)

There's no need to word it differently - because it is self-defeating. Why? Because I already made clear that "empirical verification and falsifiability have nothing to do with anyone's worldviews or belief system".

2)

Apart from showing what was wrong with that comment (as above), I also recognize that everybody argues in that manner. We all do this - and that point was well carried in my statement discussing fallacious logicum earlier that:

and many more.

huxley2:

Exactly, that is the manner of your argumentation. You state and adhoc fact, and you claim that it MUST be so, because you have stated it.

Nice try, but let's see how strong your point is. _{I had a funny feeling that was precisely where you were going.}

huxley2:

Just look at your last but one post.

There's no need to word it differently - because it is self-defeating. Why? Because I already made clear that "empirical verification and falsifiability have nothing to do with anyone's worldviews or belief system".

Was that an ad hoc "fact" (and what's the relationship between "ad hoc" and "fact"?

Anyhow, after making the statement, I asked "Why" and also gave my reasons:
Because I already made clear that "empirical verification and falsifiability have nothing to do with anyone's worldviews or belief system".
Unless you have a way of showing that was either "ad hoc" and not a "fact" (which do not mean the same), or it was indeed a "fact" and not "ad hoc", I don't see what point you've made. The basic assumption is not carried on my say-so and thus "MUST" be so. Do you feel that FALSIFIABILITY is dependent on one's worldview, huxley2?

Apart from showing what was wrong with that comment (as above), I also recognize that everybody argues in that manner. We all do this - and that point was well carried in my statement discussing fallacious logicum earlier that

And what was wrong in showing the very same thing that even YOU had observed along the same lines?