₦airaland Forum

huxley2:
Here is a comment from someone who is in communication with Mr Zammit, taken from this discussion forum . Here, he is asking Mr Zammit about a sample of the ectoplasm from David Thompson. This is Mr Zammit's response:

Well, for example, Victor says the medium exudes ectoplasm. I ask for a sample and he says that he can't get a sample because, as everyone knows, if you interupt the medium during the seance the ectoplasm will "snap back" and kill him. You have to believe in ectoplasm in order to see proof of ectoplasm. Does that make it less unclear?

If this is true, that is ectoplasm could not be obtained for fear of killing Mr Thompson, this does not bode well for this "scientific objective methodology", does it?

Lol, huxley, do not dwell much on these matters in such a manner as to push it towards your naturalistic mindset. I'm not being accusative (and I hope you don't read me so); but the "scientific objective methodology" you're referring to assumes that, one should be able to collect samples of a 'spirit' or other such entitles in a physical crucible. That idea only blurs the line between what is 'natural' and 'supernatural'.

Have you thought about the fact that scientific objective methodology may very the existence of a phenomena by direct observation, even though the observer (scientist) may not be able to offer a scientific explanation for what he observes? The basic point here is whether or not such things exist - which is at the foundation of other considerations of how to explain them. The "scientific objective methodology" you posit does not attempt to deny the existence of such phenomena as 'spirits', but rather at the basic level may observe the reality of such things. Only after that fundamental level does the investigator seek to explain those observations within the framework of a working hypothesis.

huxley2:
If he truly wished to pass his investigations off as repectable and scientific, he should have the ectoplasm subjected to analysis, say a DNA analysis.

He did not conduct the research alone - and if others are not satisfied with his methodology, nothing stops them from embarking on the same investigations.

huxley2:
In fact, reading the post for the poster who is in communication with Mr Zammit does not speak kindly of Mr Zammits objectivity. Of course, I am assuming that this poster is honest in what he has reported so far.

I already noted that there are numerous websites that are very critical of Mr Zammit and David Thompson. However, let me comment on the following:

huxley2:
Found a discussion about the act of Mr Zammit and David Thompson here http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=59453.

This book might be very helpful in understand these guys (Zammit and Thompson)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1573921610/103-4758777-4472616?v=glance&n=283155

For the second, I'd just like to know if you've read that book yourself - and if so, was that a response to Zammit and Thompson? I'm taking for granted that you've read the book yourself and not relying on the comments of reviewers at Amazon.com.

However, for someone who has been quite skeptical of Thompson, I'll repost excerpts of some of the reports he got that helped him to change his mind about Thompson's seances:

[list]

Michael Prescott's Blog

As long-time readers of this blog know, I've been very skeptical of the English medium David Thompson, who has participated in a series of séances with a group called the Circle of the Silver Cord in Sydney, Australia. . .

[  ]

Recently, however, I've started to think I was wrong about David Thompson. That is not to say there are no problems with his mediumship. I do think there are problems. There are many unanswered questions and many doubtful phenomena. But I am no longer committed to my theory that Thompson is escaping from his bonds to put on a fraudulent performance.

[  ]

Second, I've been in touch with someone who attended a David Thompson séance in the United States not long ago. This person would prefer not to be named because he doesn't want to be drawn into the sometimes rough-and-tumble online controversy. But his report of what happened is quite credible, presented in a no-nonsense tone with a lot of detail. Here are some of the facts that stood out when I read his description.

The room in which the séance took place was one that Thompson had never entered before. Since Thompson hails from the UK and has recently been living in Australia, it's not surprising that he would be unfamiliar with a building in the USA. The room was small and, when all the sitters were assembled, quite crowded. Between 22 and 24 people sat for the séance in closely arranged chairs that left little or no room for maneuvering. The sitters arranged large plywood boards over the carpeted floor so that any footsteps would be audible. Thompson was secured to a chair he had not supplied -- which, again, is not surprising, since he would hardly have transported a chair from overseas to the United States. The circle members were seated so closely together, in such cramped quarters, that had any of them left the circle, the person's defection would surely have been detected. The only door to the room was locked, and the windows were boarded shut. Thompson himself was placed in a makeshift "cabinet" -- essentially he was behind a curtain. Everyone was searched with the use of a metal detector when entering the room. Their pockets and shoes were examined, and many of their belongings (jewelry etc.) were removed.

Thompson asked for £40 from each sitter to cover his expenses (about $75). This is not a trivial amount; considering there were between 22 and 24 sitters, total earnings from the event would have been at least $1650. Still, the amount is less than the $280 per sitter that other sources have reported as Thompson's fee. And given the travel costs, it seems unlikely that Thompson made any net profit.

What is more significant is that the trumpet would speed up to a sitter's face and stop instantly when just touching the tip of the person's nose -- then repeat this action as many as four times in succession. My correspondent did not think that any human agent, working in pitch darkness, could manipulate the trumpet so precisely. It's one thing to move the trumpet helter-skelter, but another to guide it with such rapidity and precision to a particular target in the dark and do so over and over again without error. My correspondent did not hear any footsteps on the plywood planks that would have suggested a human operator.

An even more dramatic effect occurred at the very end of the séance, when a loud crash was heard in the center of the room, between the two sets of folding chairs. When the lights came on, Thompson was found, secured and gagged, in his chair at that very spot. It appeared as if the chair, with Thompson in it, had been moved out from behind the curtain (which was undisturbed) and dropped heavily onto the floor. Again, no footsteps were heard on the plywood planks. If Thompson, free of his restraints, had lugged the chair into the center of the room, it seems almost certain his footsteps would have been audible, and he very likely would have brushed against some of the sitters in the confined space. The same is true if we imagine that an accomplice or accomplices had carried the chair and dropped it.


Read more here.

[/list]

I've deliberately left the quote without highlighting anything so as not to influence the reader's mind one way or another. For me, I only present these issues from an objective point of reference such as that a skeptic may not be right in just arguing for the sake of it. Have such skeptics attempted to conduct independent researches of their own in an objective manner? Have they convincingly proven that in all possible worlds, such phenomena as 'ghosts' and 'spirits' do not exists?

Okay, I remember: deal with this atheist huxley2 here - and not plaster him with the presumptions of other atheists. Aiight. Could I therefore ask you if you have your own independent "scientific objective methodology" for investigating phenomena and interractions between the natural and supernatural?

@huxley2,

huxley2:
You seem too hang too much store on what other atheists say.   You are dealing right now with this atheist, huxley.  Atheism is NOT a dogma by which all atheists are required to subscribed to a given doctrinal line.

Okay. Even though I don't agree with you.

huxley2:
Like I say earlier, atheism address the issue of god, or dieties primarily.  The existence or non-existence of the supernatural is only a secondary and implied position in the atheist argument (So my earlier statement about atheism being "neutral" on this was rather sloppy).

Again, I'll okay that for you (my observation #3 applies).

huxley2:
So to continue what I think is a very interesting debate, engage with my arguments, and pay little store on the arguments of other atheists.  I, for one, rarely visits these "atheists" sites.

That's fine with me.

huxley2:
BTW, if my highlighting and enlarged fonts irritate you, I am sorry.  I did it because you seem to evade the simple and direct questions I have been asking.

No, I was not irritated, just making an observation that I understood you the first time and there was no need for the repetitions. I was of the opinion that I'd previously attended your questions directly before attempting to simplify my approach or basic assumptions.

huxley2:
Now, to the substance.  I know you have said scientific tools could "possibly" investigate the supernatural.  That is a reasonable response.  But why should I (or we) stop there.  We are inquisitive minds and we are constantly seeking for answers to the puzzles that is reality.

True, we all have inquisitive minds; and we should not just stop at some the gate of some 'schmaltz' (exaggerated sentimentality). This is why I decided to approach this discussion broadly instead of the usual 'Christian vs atheist' . . (there I go again). . "fallacious logicum".    Pardon me.

huxley2:
If you agree that science could possibly be used to investigate the supernatural, the next thing I would expect a good scientist to do is to try and find  answers to the following questions:

a)  It appears that the natural and the supernatural do indeed interact with one another given that natural tools can detect supernatural phenomenon. What is the mechanism behind this?


Do you agree that this is a fair question?

I agree - and thank you for simplifying it further for us all. The question would, of course, presuppose other underlying thoughts, which I should not preempt for now. Just an instance (couldn't resist): wouldn't that depend on what 'natural tools' one may be projecting into the scenario?

But wait a moment. . . why is it that it's only very few atheists that are in this thread, hmmmm? Apart from Tùdor, huxley2, William_C. . where are the 'typical atheists' on NL?


Just an observation though.

huxley2:
OK, let me give you an idea. Can you say natural or supernatural to each of the following according to what is commonly and standardly accepted ?

1) An apple

2) A rump of steak

3) [size=14pt]A ghost[/size]

4) A gorilla

5) crop circles

6) [size=14pt]Angels[/size]

7) Jinn

8.) Fairies

9) UFO

10) Light

11) Stigmata

12) ESP

13) Ectoplasm

14) Thunder and lightening

15) Mami water

I could give you a whole list of myriads of others. However, were "ghosts" and "angels" not included in what atheists themselves regard as 'supernatural'? How many times have we quoted that same definition? I wonder why this is repetitious and circular pursuit seems the best appeal to you.

@huxley2,

At least, someone has observed my answers in just one sentence:

Pastor AIO:
Answer: When we know what exactly is Natural as opposed to supernatural.

Compare that with:

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=279631.msg3994283#msg3994283 date=1244462183]Just try and help yourself: what do you mean by the "non-natural"? Help yourself here, huxley2. What exactly do you take to be "non-natural" within your working hypothesis?
. . .

Now when you come to understand your own use of the term 'non-natural' (including any set of entities as best describe them for you), then think carefully through your own question again before repeating the same thing breezily. Failing to first understand and define for yourself the very terms you're reposting over and over again, is basically confirming my observation #9 about atheistic arguments:

"9. most atheists do not have a good grasp about the issues they tend to argue."[/quote]

@huxley2,

It does not appear you're making any sense, and using large font does not make you any clearer. I've explained my premise and offered some assumptions to bear in mind, as recycled and retired lullabies will be thrown out for their empty repetitions. I'm tempted to do that just now, but I'd rather oblige you once more.

huxley2:
1) Can we use scientific methods to investigate the non-natural?

Possibly. Possibly. Possibly. Possibly. . . to an infinite recurrent decimal: Possibly.

Now, just what do I mean by "possibly"? I've explained that, using an example, haven't I?

Just try and help yourself: what do you mean by the "non-natural"? Help yourself here, huxley2. What exactly do you take to be "non-natural" within your working hypothesis? At least, in my own approach I drew from a typical atheist website (Rapid Response Squad) concerning what some atheists may regard as non-natural, using the preferred term: "supernatural". To quote them once 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].

Please understand: I've gone to the atheist to understand what he includes in the term 'supernatural' - and having listed them as he did, I proceeded to contain my discussions along such lines.  

Now when you come to understand your own use of the term 'non-natural' (including any set of entities as best describe them for you), then think carefully through your own question again before repeating the same thing breezily. Failing to first understand and define for yourself the very terms you're reposting over and over again, is basically confirming my observation #9 about atheistic arguments:

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

huxley2:
2) Is Mr Zammits methodology justified in using the scientific method?

I believe the point in my posting that as an example has been clearly stated. This is not an argument about someone's epistemology; but rather showing that as an example of someone who, at the very least, would be willing to go out and investigate such phenomena instead of being an armchair debater. The question I'm tempted to ask you is: where is your own epistemology, huxley2? You cannot be sitting down and producing zilch but cheap talk with nothing to show for your own assumed superiority. If Mr. Zammit was wrong about:

             -  objectivity

             -  repeatability

             -  scientific method

. . . then you make your own attempt to investigate such phenomena by your own epistemology. That is what thinkers do, and not just sit down repeating questions that hardly inspires confidence in your position. My observation #10 comes to mind:

        "10. fallacious logicum is at the root of many atheistic arguments."

huxley2:
3) When will he know that what he has got is NOT natural but the Supernatural?

Does he even know anything about such phenomena, huxley2? Again, the point in posting that link was simply this: such a person attempted to investigate such phenomena by some methodology. His methodology may be flawed or applaued; but, at least, the atheist naturalist should go one step and do his own research and come up with answers. Where are your own answers from your own epistemology?

I've carefully done my homework and waiting for you guys. . . just knock on my door and I'll answer pronto.  I'm very aware that both Mr Zammit and David Thompson are controversial - and there are various websites so bitter criticisms against their works. One such blogger changed his mind after receiving reports from a first-hand witness of Thompson's seances; yet another commented that there has never been any such realities anywhere. Whatever the case, how do we sort out such arguements? Whatever Mr Zammit may argue is not the point: the real issue is this - do such entities (ghosts, spirits, etc) exist? One way of finding out is to go and investigate them by direct observation.

Why do we find that the only thing skeptics and atheists know how to do so well is sit behind some keyboard and shout in large fonts?

JJYOU:
doing good thanks. hope this week ba nice one and pls learn to ignore the ever learning and not understanding non tithing brigade

That was prophetic - this morning alone, several well-meaning and mature friends have said just about the same thing and asked me to just concentrate on dialogues with atheists and roundly ignore the [ . ] brigade. It's well, I comply - and it's gonna be a good week. Enjoy plenty.

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:
[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=279631.msg3993624#msg3993624 date=1244454549]3. we may allow any atheist to choose what best describes his/her worldview

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

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

How true is that?[/quote]I would say 'tentatively true' - until such time as the atheist naturalist ever would provide satisfactory explanations for the realities of our known world. I think you've captured it in an expanded form below:

Pastor AIO:
I haven't come across any definition of naturalism that captures every phenomenon known in the real world.  I've seen naturalists define and redefine their positions in an attempt to include everything but they fail so consistently it is almost a law of nature that no definition of naturalism includes all known phenomena.  

It's this desperate attempt to find a definition that captures all known phenomena that leads me to the conclusion that naturalism is a reaction based on a bias against the idea of the supernatural rather than an objective position.

Dare I say anymore?

JJYOU:
YOU THIS PROF. NAWAO. TRUST YOU ARE WELL?

Lol, my broda. . I dey kampe. How are you doing?

. . . cont.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=279631.msg3993563#msg3993563 date=1244453777]

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?[/quote]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.

. . . 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.

@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.

@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?

segyemaro:
Kenny,e be like say u never see were mama beat pikin and make him to kneel down, mama go enter bedroom go sleep.

Hmm. . I hope that didn't happen to you sha!

Lol, enjoy the week O! God bless you throughout your endeavours.

@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.

[quote author=Tùdor link=topic=279631.msg3992622#msg3992622 date=1244430027]No matter how queer it may sound its entirely possible. People lie for different reasons some very bizzare.[/quote]@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.

ajokeakin:
pilgrim,you are a pain in the ass,you are just confusing those that are far from their bible.

chukwudi44:
Pilgrim,
Your penchant for mischief has been exposed.Everyone can now see clearly where you are even If you decide to deny it .

You mean we should just fold our hands amd allow criminals get away with their antics?
A lot of people are ignorant of the truths about tithing and must be educated.

Dear ajokeakin and chukwudi44,

I can stomach as much detractions as you might've stored up, but how do such otiose remarks demonstrate you have grown beyond such childish rants?

[quote author=Tùdor link=topic=279631.msg3990866#msg3990866 date=1244397483]Naturalistic explanation? O.k he's lying,it don't get more natural than that does it?[/quote]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?

[quote author=Tùdor link=topic=279631.msg3989690#msg3989690 date=1244376215]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.[/quote]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?

huxley2:
[quote author=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?[/quote]@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?

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.

[quote author=Tùdor link=topic=279631.msg3989466#msg3989466 date=1244368357]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.[/quote]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:
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.

[quote author=Tùdor link=topic=279631.msg3989374#msg3989374 date=1244364663]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.[/quote]@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.

[quote author=William_C link=topic=279631.msg3988639#msg3988639 date=1244334707]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.[/quote]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.

[quote author=William_C link=topic=279631.msg3988639#msg3988639 date=1244334707]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.[/quote]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.

[quote author=William_C link=topic=279631.msg3988639#msg3988639 date=1244334707]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.[/quote]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.

@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.

[quote author=William_C link=topic=279631.msg3988639#msg3988639 date=1244334707]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.[/quote]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][quote author=William_C link=topic=279631.msg3987915#msg3987915 date=1244318776]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.[/quote][/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?

[quote author=William_C link=topic=279631.msg3988639#msg3988639 date=1244334707]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.[/quote]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.

[quote author=William_C link=topic=279631.msg3988639#msg3988639 date=1244334707]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.[/quote]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.

[quote author=William_C link=topic=279631.msg3988639#msg3988639 date=1244334707]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.[/quote]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.

[quote author=William_C link=topic=279631.msg3988639#msg3988639 date=1244334707]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,[/quote]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.

@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.

Gentlemen: davidylan and dalaman,

Perhaps the small problem may not actually be a problem, for it appears you're both emphasizing issues that may be correct from two different perspectives. I don't know and may be wrong; but I feel the simple solution there is the elusive nature of legislature in the countries addressed. Let me take just the case of Sweden:

[list]

dalaman:
. . . and incest marriage is NOT allowed in Sweden.

It is illegal for siblings to get married in Sweden

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_incest

http://www.skatteverket.se/folkbokforing/ovrigt/aktenskap.4.18e1b10334ebe8bc80004956.html

[/list]

__________________


[list]

davidylan:
Source - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6424337.stm

As regards Sweden

Sweden is the only country in Europe which allows marriage between siblings who share a parent

Source - Already quoted above.

Sweden's legalisation of marriage between siblings however requires special permission by Swedish authorities and is only allowed between siblings from only one parent . . .

[/list]


Let's see how they stand out:

1. From the BBC website (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6424337.stm)
[this was given as 'Last Updated: Monday, 12 March 2007,']
'Sweden is the only country in Europe which allows
marriage between siblings who share a parent.'

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2. From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_incest#Sweden)
[this was given as "This page was last modified on 29 May 2009"]
"It is illegal for siblings to get married in Sweden"


If you look carefully, you'd find that davidylan was correct in his quote as regards incest marriages in Sweden up until 2007; whereas the more recent case was quoted by dalaman for 2009. Bear in mind that legislations in the Scandinavia change from time to time as well.

But more to the point is to visit the official website of the Swedish Government (Skatteverket) on this issue:

Swedish:

Från och med den 1 maj 2009 är äktenskapet könsneutralt, dvs.
de som ingår äktenskap kan vara antingen en man och en kvinna
eller två kvinnor eller två män. Tidigare kunde två män eller två
kvinnor registrera partnerskap men lagen om detta upphörde att
gälla den 1 maj 2009. De som är registrerade partner enligt den
tidigare lagen fortsätter att vara det om de inte väljer att omvandla
sitt partnerskap till ett äktenskap.

- - - - - -

I svensk lag finns följande hinder mot äktenskap:

● Ålder - Du som är under 18 år får inte gifta dig utan tillstånd.
● Släktskap - Ni som är nära släkt får inte gifta er med varandra.
● Du som redan är gift får inte ingå nytt äktenskap. Detsamma gäller om
du är registrerad partner enligt tidigare lag.

________________________________


English:

From the May 1, 2009 marriage is gender neutral, ie.
Those who marry can be either a man and a woman or
two women or two men. Previously, two men or two women
to register partnerships, but the law on this expired May 1, 2009.
Those who are registered partners under the former Act
continues to be there unless they choose to convert their
partnership to a marriage.

- - - - - -

In Swedish law, there are barriers to marriage:

● Age - If you are under 18 years may not marry without permission
● Relationship - You who are close relatives should not get married with each other.
● You already married must not include new marriage. The same applies if
you are registered under previous laws.

Source: http://www.skatteverket.se/folkbokforing/ovrigt/aktenskap.4.18e1b10334ebe8bc80004956.html


I think the difference is only in what obtained in 2007 and what is happening in Sweden since May 1, 2009.

[quote author=William_C link=topic=279631.msg3987915#msg3987915 date=1244318776]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.[/quote]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?

[quote author=William_C link=topic=279631.msg3987915#msg3987915 date=1244318776]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.[/quote]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?

[quote author=William_C link=topic=279631.msg3987915#msg3987915 date=1244318776]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.[/quote]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.

[quote author=William_C link=topic=279631.msg3987915#msg3987915 date=1244318776]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[/quote]I've cited two - and I'm eagerly awaiting.

[quote author=William_C link=topic=279631.msg3987915#msg3987915 date=1244318776]Let me say again that this is not simply a prove or disprove argument, but me simply stating why I disbelieve.[/quote]I understand, which is why I was taking it outside the 'prove or disprove' arguments and broadening the scope of the discussion.

[quote author=William_C link=topic=279631.msg3987915#msg3987915 date=1244318776]I will study the link first before making any remark. Thanks for the link.[/quote]No worries.

[quote author=William_C link=topic=279631.msg3987915#msg3987915 date=1244318776]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.[/quote]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.

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.

[quote author=William_C link=topic=279631.msg3987915#msg3987915 date=1244318776]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."[/quote]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.

[quote author=William_C link=topic=279631.msg3987915#msg3987915 date=1244318776]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.[/quote]Okay, since the atheist cannot disprove the existence of God, all other arguments will just be non-essentials at the moment.

[quote author=William_C link=topic=279631.msg3987915#msg3987915 date=1244318776]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.[/quote]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?

[quote author=William_C link=topic=279631.msg3987915#msg3987915 date=1244318776]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.[/quote]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?

[quote author=William_C link=topic=279631.msg3987915#msg3987915 date=1244318776]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.[/quote]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?

[quote author=William_C link=topic=279631.msg3987915#msg3987915 date=1244318776]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.[/quote]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.

[quote author=William_C link=topic=279631.msg3987915#msg3987915 date=1244318776]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.[/quote]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?

@wirinet,

wirinet:
Argument between theists and atheist cannot get anywhere same for between christianity and islam and between anyother religion. When i was at university my born again room mates and i would argue for days without out getting anywhere. Each person is dug into his/her mind set and belief system, changing that mindset is almost an impossible task. I know for sure that a person is ready to defend his belief system with every thing they have both rational and irrational, and attacking a person's belief system is taken as an act of war - figuratively and sometimes physically.

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 occurences within the atheist community that atheists cannot easily dismiss out-of-hand.

wirinet:
Becoming an atheist is a slow and gradual (and sometimes painful) proccess. I do not subscribe to atheists trying to convince theists to give up their religion or rediculing any of the theist religions and putting themselves on a high pedestal. Atheists should be contented they have found the truth just like the religionist should be contended they have found the truth. it should be left at that as they both live in seperate worlds like fish and birds.

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.

@Tùdor,

[quote author=Tùdor link=topic=279631.msg3987620#msg3987620 date=1244314392]I couldn't care less if people were hearing ghost recordings or whatever. It doesn't prove or disprove anything- it just means one more thing to find natural answers for.[/quote]You may not care enough for such phenomena, but that attitude does not demonstrate an open, honest mind to serious enquiry. I've been deliberately selective in the posts because I wanted some of you to see that there are atheists honest enough to admit that these occurences actually do take place, and they even admit that it affects them in such a way as to reconsider their naturalism. Certainly it proves the very fact that naturalism has no answers to such realities - and I'd go so far as to state that naturalism stands limp in the face of such hard evidence. If the atheist who's committed to his naturalism would be honest, he either would have found satisfactory answers for such phenomena - in which case it would be contingent upon him/her to replicate them precisely in their manner and achieve the same results. You cannot just dismiss them out-of-hand and claim they don't prove or disprove anything.

[quote author=Tùdor link=topic=279631.msg3987620#msg3987620 date=1244314392]I'm pretty sure if you travel back in time to father abraham with two magnets,he'd probably think its ''supernatural''. Electricity was ever existent till itwas discovered by faraday. Different phenomena might be present,the fact we don't know what they are doesnt scream 'supernatural'[/quote]Your presumption is quite revealing, because it indicates that you probably may not quite understand what you may want to qualify as 'supernatural'. Again, I've been selective for one reason: to show that when hard evidence is presented firsthand to the atheist, he would have to make some more informed statement - not excuses, prevarications or careless dismissals. This is why John Safran's case is one such interesting 'soft' case considered here, because at least we know that he was not acting or faking his own experience in that encounter.

[quote author=Tùdor link=topic=279631.msg3987620#msg3987620 date=1244314392]crop circles have been found supposedly made by aliens,there're well documented reports of UFO sightings with radar operators sighting supersonic crafts. . .we still haven't declared extra terrestrial existent.[/quote]I'm quite familiar with crop circles and UFO phenomena - which was again one reason why I first started the thread "Our Orphic World". These could be determined and explicated by natural means. However, how do you explain ghost phenomena and exorcism (in the case of Safran) by naturalism?

[quote author=Tùdor link=topic=279631.msg3987620#msg3987620 date=1244314392]So calm down,strange or unknown isn't equal to supernatural.[/quote]I haven't made the claim that 'strange or unknown' = 'supernatural'. certainly, there are so many categories of 'strange' which do not qualify as 'supernatural' in this discussion. However, I'd be quite interested in well-informed reasoning on what have been proffered already where atheists believe in ghosts and the exorcism that Safran experienced. Mere armchair aruments characteristic of fallacious logicum will not cut the cookie at this point.

More examples to come after you deal with the previous two cases.