₦airaland Forum

huxley2:
Atheism is not contingent on Naturalism as these are two different philosophical positions.  Atheist arguments from time immemorial have been contingent on pure a priori reasoning.

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

huxley2:
Take for instance Epicurus's arguments about the problem of evil:

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

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

huxley2:
This is simple a priori reasoning and uses none of the tenets of science, but is such an effective argument no theists have been able to address it satisfactorily.

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

huxley2:
In fact, in pre-scientisfic societies, many of the arguments againsts theism (by implication for atheism)  were contingent on such a priori reasoning and on simple logic and coherence. Arguments like:

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

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

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

4) The ontological arguments

5) Arguments from the hiddenness of god(s)

etc, etc, etc.

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

huxley2:
Non of these arguments are contingent on naturalism, or on science, yet they are very effective arguments.   So to say atheism is contingent on naturalism (or science) is simply wrong for one can be an atheist without having a clue about science.  Epicurus and the epicureans were atheists with little or no knowledge of the knowledge that science gives.

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

huxley2:
Now, modern atheists are in the fortunate position in that they can now add the results of scientific methods to their arsenal of arguments against theism.  To paraphrase Dawkins, "Science has made is possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist".

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

huxley2:
Absolutely, naturalism is a DOCTRINE, in the general philosophical sense of the word doctrine, according to which a doctrine is a point of view.  But there is a difference between naturalism and religion or supernaturalism.

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

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

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

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

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

huxley2:
Let me test out your level of dogmatism with the following question:

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

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

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

huxley2:
Who are these many people?  Face up to the arguments I put to you and leave the subjective stuff like "many atheists do not have a clue what they're arguing".  Why you you think you have a clue and others do not?  Address the arguments and let them speak for themselves.  I have warned you before about your tendencies to dwell on personalities - this is not a way of argumentation.

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

huxley2:
Who said atheism is science?  Who implied atheism is science.  Why did you have to say that?  This is the sort of mischaracterisation is has become a habit with you, and it smacks of dishonesty.

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

skyone:
@ Pilgrim

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

No worries.

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

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

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

What questions?

toneyb:
We are going round and round in a circle , but let me say this, Any body that has meet a Christians knows that the Christian follows the biblical injunction of paying his offering when he goes to church. Every body sees it and know that act or behavior is strongly associated with Christianity. People see Christians praying, because Christians do that all the time because they have been commanded to do that in the bible, Every body that knows Christianity knows that Christians pray. Prayer is a behavior that people know or associate Christians with.

I'm sorry I didn't join your spinning around. I simply wanted to know why you deviated with the interpolation of "offering". . unless you're trying to make them the same thing.

toneyb:
Every body that knows Christianity knows that Christians worship their God through songs and dancing, it is a biblical injunction that Christians abide by the world over. Baptism is another common biblical injunction that Christians abide by. It is very common, Christians engage in it all over the place. Non Christians know that Christians do it and that behavior is associated with Christianity. It is also a biblical injunction that Christians abide by the world over. NO body will say that Christians abide by the injunction of turning the other cheek when some one smites them. Christians simply do not follow that injunction. Christian do not give out their coat when some one sues them for the cloak, if they do it will be seen and people will know them for that kind of behavior. But no they don't, Christians do not behave that way. They do not obey that injunction.

Assumptions are very dangerous, you know. I know some Christian groups that do not make a rule of baptizing people in order to particpate in their services; whereas others emphasize on it. In the same way, there are Christians who obey the command in your initial post - and others which do not care that much as to make it a part of their lives.

toneyb:
You are the one that is getting it all wrong. Atheism is simply lack of belief in god. Have I ever told you that I reject any of the examples that you gave such Telepathy? What do you mean that I really don't have a clue about my own world view? . The supernatural to me are things that have no explanations for at present. The rainbow was once thought to be the direct act of the supernatural, just like lighting, earth quakes, volcanoes etc and so many atheist at that time despite not believing in any god/gods believed that those events were indeed supernatural events because they were yet to be understood and explained.

You still have no clue, toneyb. . and this is why I very well doubt you ever took the time to read through this thread. I drew from what atheists themselves have affirmed, not from what they have not affirmed. At least, for you the supernatural are things that do not have explanations at present - but that is a very different thing from someone denying their existence out of hand. Most people's atheism rejects ALL things supernatural, and I drew from the point of reference that many atheists are beginning to shift from such a hollow denial to an affirmation that such phenomena exist! The question is: what is the position of those who deny their existence? This is where you're confusing issues for yourself if you can't see that the things I'm mentioning are from the atheists themselves. If you read confused, perhaps those atheists are indeed confused.

toneyb:
Some atheist believe in the supernatural because of their personal experiences and world view generally. The question is what really is the supernatural and how does it function. In what way does the supernatural interfere or interact with the natural? How do we know that it is the supernatural and can you give me an empirical example to the supernatural at work? Because atheist believe in the supernatural doesn't make it any true, Muslims believe in Allah does that mean that Allah is true?

Still more confused thinking. What you're trying so hard to dismiss is that since you haven't experienced something for yourself, then it cannot be true or does not exist. Which makes one wonder: could it be said that the atheists which have experienced such things for themselves are saying things which are not true? On the other hand, if these atheists can be taken seriously by other atheists, would it not make more sense to seek to understand the nature of such phenomena rather than dismissing them on the basis that you do not understand their nature? Does your lack of understanding their nature therefore mean that they do not exists or can be dismissed summarily on tenuous assumptions?

[quote author=Tùdor link=topic=282213.msg4016992#msg4016992 date=1244796730]@pilgrim
''The church is not perfect'' there-in lies your hypocrisy the bible says ''be ye perfect even as your lord jesus was perfect''[/quote]You seem confused, Tùdor. Now steady on and let me help you.

The church is not perfect, and that does not overrule the fact that she is urged to become what she is not. These two positions are not to be confused the way you display your hypocritic arrogance. If you're not something, asking you to go on to what you're not, does not mean that I assume you "already" are that same thing!

There are several "be ye" statements that demonstrate this point:

 (1) Therefore be ye also ready - Matt. 24:24, Luke 12:40

 (2) but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind - Rom. 12:2

 (3) be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another - 1 Pet. 3:8

In context, these are examples describing progression - they do not assume that believers already automatically have become "perfect".

[quote author=Tùdor link=topic=282213.msg4016992#msg4016992 date=1244796730]the original statement was ''NO church is 100% perfect'' if the church is imperfect as you say how can an imperfect church supposed to be the body,property and under guidance of a perfect Jesus produce imperfect people for the kingdom where only the perfect are allowed? Is it possible?[/quote]I knew you're reading issues from a wrong end. The One who is perfect takes imperfect people and brings them to maturity.

[quote author=Tùdor link=topic=282213.msg4016992#msg4016992 date=1244796730]Why the contradictions?[/quote]There is no contradiction besides what you have wrongly inferred.

huxley2:
Ah, yes.  I saw this one but skipped it because it made absolute no sense; not that all you other post which I address make sense, I hasten to add.  Ok, let's give it a go now;

We have been through this many times before.  Atheism is not contingent on Naturalism.  Example, I have got about 15 textbooks on my text right now and none of them discuss naturalism at all.

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

huxley2:
Naturalism is a philosophical position that gets is inspiration primarily from science and the scientific method  and is a relatively new worldview and by necessity post-dates science.

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

huxley2:
Atheism addresses the existence and belief in gods or deities.

On what contingency, huxley2?

huxley2:
Is is possible for one to be an atheist (usually a simple atheist) and also a supernaturalist as there is no contradiction in these positions.  It is really hard to get a sensible debate when you constantly and dishonestly mischaracterise these positions.  (This is called the straw-man fallacy, but we shall come to that later)

That is YOUR strawman, not mine. You yourself admitted that there are atheists who believe in the supernatural (or the 'spiritual', if I'm wrong). The question is not that I confused them - I already noted that

       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

And the sort of atheism you espouse does not include the atheism of all atheists! That is the very reason why I drew from what atheists themselves have argued, rather than narrow my discussions to just your own simplistic assumptions. To ask that every atheist on board be viewed within the matrix of your own atheism is most disingenuous and cheap, because you'd then be making the same logical fallacy arguing away from what we know about other atheists' position.

huxley2:
Atheism has existed probably since humans developed cognitive powers, BUT naturalism is only about 200 - 300 years old.  How the hell could say "'naturalism' is the underlying principle in the atheism of many people"?

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

huxley2:
Now, to acquit yourself, please address these questions:

1)  How old is atheistic philosophy

I don't know - I'm not an atheist. The age os atheism does not take away from the premise of what is being discussed. if it does, please show how.

huxley2:
2)  What is modern naturalism and how old is it.  (note I added the adjective "modern" to stress the naturalism derived from modern science as opposed to other forms of naturalism)

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

huxley2:
It is hardly worth continuing if such elementary concepts pose you sucg difficulties.   I shall address the remainder of this post when I see your response to my questions above.

You're not making any sese in yours either. How many times have others noted your needless roundabout-turns?

toneyb:
I have never meet all Christians, but I have never meet any that obeys that command. If Christians obey that injunction, it will be seen. Every body knows that Christians go to church and give their offerings in church there is evidence for that.

Okay, good to kow you haven't met every Christian - I used to think like you. But there are some that I've encountered who obey that command, and do so independent of whether anyone gives offering or not. That command has nothing to do with anyone giving offerings.

toneyb:
Christians on the average do not marry more than one wife, there is evidence for that too, There is no evidence to show that Christians turn the other cheek when some one smites them or give out their coat when some one sues them for the cloak. If they do it will be seen.

You only know those you speak about; that in itself does not mean you have to broaden it to mean that "there is no evidence" to show what you have not encountered.

Pastor AIO:
If however you reject our definition of Nature and leave Nature open ended so that we can keep shifting the goalposts in order to fit in any phenomena that we might encounter then we need to be ready for one possibility.

That we will discover a spiritual reality and even God and find that it is ALL very NATURAL. Spirits will be Natural to and there'll still be no such thing as the supernatural.

Good one. I shall bear this in mind. When such a time comes, it is not so much that they don't exist; but that the atheist has DENIED them repeatedly. That is the simple point. It is one thing to say that "there are no spirits, ghosts" etc; or that "there is NO God", and then later come back to say that God exists but is "natural".

toneyb:
I am very sorry to say but you have done no such thing, I spent the entire evening yesterday reading the whole thread(Very interesting thread by the way) and you kept going round and round in a circle. You have been asking and presenting the same boring arguments over and over again only to turn around and say that the atheist are the one doing it. .

I'm very sorry to say you didn't read through and are just making such a claim.

toneyb:
Tudur has told you so many times that the fact that there are so many things that we cant explain today or which we don't know now doesn't mean that we won't know or provided explanations for them in the future.

Perfect atheist excuse, sorry it does not work out his atheism. Everything he hopes to narrow down to his naturalism should also be able to explicate such events. It does not mean that they do not occur; but that within known natural laws, how does he explain and replicate them? The cry that "we don't yet know them" is a weak and self-defeating excuse.

toneyb:
He gave you very good examples but you kept dismissing them.

What "good examples"? This is why I like wasting your cheap assumptions. Where did Tùdor give me those examples that I have not answered? Arguments by demagoguery is the cause you champion, and it is the very same thing that weakens your position, you know.

toneyb:
Interesting, Pilgrim1 has been going round in circles trying to show that a supernatural realm exist without given any clear or definitive example.All she has been able to do so far is present speculations and suppositions as here evidence of the supernatural. Are you a theist because you believe that there is a supernatural realm that exist out there or are you a theist because you believe that the biblegod is that supernatural entity?

You typically arrived again at the fallacious logicum I already identified. It's really funny that the best shot you guys can give to the examples I already pointed to is this weak musings. What is your best shot for the fact that there are atheists that have first-hand experiences of the same thing that your narrow atheism rejects out-of-hand? This cheap interjections is the reason why I enjoy wasting your fallacy - because you really don't have a clue about your own worldview. Independent of the examples I already gave, can you tell me why there are atheists that believe in the supernatural?

Nikky23:
im sad

You don't need to remain sad for long. If he baulked, he did - but don't let it keep you from moving on. I've known a few people who picked up again after putting the past behind them. Only one out of such turned out that the guy was begging to come back - trust the lady, she's moved on and didn't want to re-live the sad past. Happily married, she sometimes says that she's "glad" the break-up happened, because if it hadn't, maybe she would not have risen to where she found herself in her life's pursuit. So think less about the heaviness - picked up, move on, and reach your potentials. It will take time, but God give you grace.

toneyb:
Why is it that Christians NEVER obey this command despite the fact that it came from Jesus himself?

Who says Christians NEVER obey that command? Have you met ALL Christians and can say you know for sure that they don't NEVER obey that command?

[quote author=Tùdor link=topic=279631.msg4016927#msg4016927 date=1244795833]Pilgrim you keep going round and round in circles making this discussion boring
it's quite unintelligent for you to ask we explain phenomenom using natural laws we ALREADY know,when its entirely possible it could fall under the unknown law territory. . .If you were born in 200 BC would you be able to explain electricity with natural laws known to you by then?
Be objective for once please.[/quote]I'm sorry but your allegations are wrong. I've explained my premise, discussed at length, moved past the usual atheist repetitions, and lately called for such repetions to grow up and move on. How is it that I'm the one now making your "round and round in circles"? The boredom here is coming from atheists posts asking the same boring questions that are not heading anywhere and seeking to narrow everything down to the "-ism" of their naturalism. If in all possible worlds there is nothing that is beyond your naturalism, how do you explicate the occurences that are exemplified as actually beyond your naturalism? Is that an unfair question to ask those who make such narrow assumptions? If these examples fail your naturalism, how is that anyone's fault?

huxley2:
Can you point me to the link?

Gladly.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=279631.msg4016772#msg4016772 date=1244792986]Often, after sitting back to watch atheists discuss their worldview, I then discussed my [size=14pt]approach[/size] in engaging atheist thinking in this thread, and then [size=14pt]repeated[/size] the 10 points that their logic could be summarised to - . . .[/quote]Then again, let me leave them plainly posted:

(a) https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-279631.96.html#msg3993584

(b) https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-279631.96.html#msg3993624

I hope these would help for now.

[quote author=Tùdor link=topic=282213.msg4016874#msg4016874 date=1244794923]Pilgrim this is an unnecessary denial. . .[/quote]Tùdor, there's no denial in my response - and I don't think that it's a healthy interpolation into my post. The one thing that is a put-off in the atheist's discourses is the unnecessary far-fetched reactions that is all too characteristic of your position - and that is no way to discuss other people's worldview(s).

[quote author=Tùdor link=topic=282213.msg4016874#msg4016874 date=1244794923]Isn't the church the BODY of christ? And can still remember Jesus telling Peter ''On this rock i'll build MY church and the gates of hell shall not previal''
its a shame you now deny the owner of the church.[/quote]That does not amount to my denying the Owner of the Church - you just got you ideas mixed up. The fact that the Church is composed of imperfect people should be enough to make you realize that we're not "perfect". The Church is not built upon the 'church'; be that as it may, we all have our problems as well, yet we do not glory in them. The 'perfection' does not come from within us, but from Jesus Himself. An example: if an atheist deviates from atheism, should that be used to narrow all atheists around the world to that deviation? In the same way, you cannot assume that just because Christians have their own problems (a fact which the Bible does not hide), it does not therefore mean that an atheist should try to score cheap by resorting to the sort of unnecessary reaction as you displayed earlier.

huxley2:
What do these words mean?

1) Objective

2) Dogma or dogmatic, or dogmatist

3) fallacious logicum

It would help tremendously if you could illustrate you response with how each word or terminology applies to the atheism and theist worldviews.

Thankz

Hi huxley2,

I am almost in shock that you would ask such questions! Infact, amused as to even consider them a waste of time to reply to them! Have I not explained them previously? Did you ever check the links I left that point to the page where I ALREADY explained them? No offence, but if this discussion is not going anywhere, the atheist should retire and save us all this needless repetitions.

huxley2:
Pastor, thankz for the EPR references. I had come across this many years ago, and until I read your post could not remember it. In fact, the EPR illustrate the key thrust of my position - which is that;

How do you know that what you have observe does not obey a law(s) currently unknown to us?

Are we aware of ALL the possible FIELDS that envelops the universe of space-time? Could these particle be influencing each other along such unknown fields?

You are probably familiar with the multi-nation multi-billion dollar electron accelerator (Hadron?) experiment to investigate the Higgs field, are you not? Could these electrons be interacting along the Higgs field.

Can you think of any phenomena that were previously unexplained and consequently thought supernatural before electro-magnetism was discover? The Northen Lights comes to mind.

Gentlemen, I think we've moved past this roundabout discussion. No offence, but I don't see anything that advances what has been discussed before. At the bottom of all this is the question of what distinguishes between the 'natural' and 'supernatural' - and even the Hadron was not embarked upon to investigate the supernatural. Not even close is the question of whether or not we aware of ALL the possible FIELDS that envelops the universe of space-time.
We're all asking questions contained within what we ALREADY know currently - and the examples are asking the naturalist to explicate why such experiences and events are not contained within 'known naturalistic laws' or assumptions. Why do these phenomena seem to have no naturalistic explanations to them, even though they cannot be denied as having occured? Do we take it that the difficulty lies at just one premise: a tribal loyalty to the "-ism" of Naturalism?

Just my observation.

@Tùdor,

[quote author=Tùdor link=topic=282213.msg4016788#msg4016788 date=1244793404]The HYPOCRISY of you christian folk is shocking![/quote]Yours is the most illiterate comment I ever came across in all possible worlds! How can you require objective thinking from others and you don't seem to demonstrate that in your engagement with Christians? Yours is precisely the hypocrisy you allege against others. Trying to discuss does not mean you have to barge into a thread and assume an accusative position.

[quote author=Tùdor link=topic=282213.msg4016788#msg4016788 date=1244793404]Some of the posts here gather around ''no church is 100% perfect'' and many more agree.[/quote]And just what is wrong with that? Just what is wrong with people agreeing and disagreeing?

[quote author=Tùdor link=topic=282213.msg4016788#msg4016788 date=1244793404]That's just plain stupid coz you hypocrites preach that [b]J[/b]esus was perfect and only perfect people without sin will enter the kingdom of god.HOW THEN CAN THE CHURCH BE IMPERFECT? The many lies of the followers of a nazarene carpenter. . .[/quote][b]J[/b]esus is not "the Church" - the Church is composed of people who themselves are imperfect. If any particular church turns out to be imperfect, it does not therefore mean you have to belittle yourself with such crass  logic to assume an accusation as in yours.

This cheap atheistic bashing should put you guys to shame.

skyone:
The reason why i didn't join in the discussion from the begining is very simple; Atheist generally are a set of confused people as sometimes they give you reasons why they are not an atheist (because they are not sure where they belong). Ask them the simple meaning of an atheist you will find out that their reasons for not being an atheist is directly linked to the true definition of an atheist.

What a bunch of confused people they are .

No point cracking my brain on baseless topic.

@skyone,

How body?  I can well understand your concerns. On the other hand, the reason why I joined the discussion is to point out that very thing: that atheism as held in many atheists' mindset is simply a "reaction based on a bias. . rather than an objective position" (borrowing from Pastor AIO). Often, after sitting back to watch atheists discuss their worldview, I then discussed my approach in engaging atheist thinking in this thread, and then repeated the 10 points that their logic could be summarised to -

      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 known 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.

It turns out that we're seeing the same thing repeatedly; and so far I'm inclined again to agree that it is a "reaction based on a bias. . rather than an objective position".

However, we should be sensitive to other people's feelings, though. Just like Tùdor observed just above, this subject is a very sensitive one for many people, both theists and atheists alike. We'll do our best to bring them round to consider something about their position that many of them may not have previously given good thought to.

Cheers.

Generica:
You called him your boyfriend. Before I answer that tell me is boyfriend/girlfriend affairs permitted by God?

It all depends on what you mean by the highlighted.

amnestylaw:
[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=274550.msg3946111#msg3946111 date=1243615198]Your last line: "those in heaven are not supposed to be humans" - how do you know?

Pilgrim.1, did you not critically analyse my statements?EVEN IF HE EXISTED, "HE WAS FROM HEAVEN" and those in heaven(according to religionists' view as taken from most "holy books" are not SUPPOSED to be humans. That is to say, if it was true that jesus existed according to what some people "believe" based on biblical stories, then who would know him since he was said to have come from ("heaven" a place i have never been and much sure you would not tell me you have been there?[/quote]@amnesty,
It's been a while and I thought your reply above would grow so that we discuss some more. Actually, I carefully analysed your statement, and yet it does not add anything new to give substance to your premise. How would you still know that those in heaven are not supposed to be human? Granted, some hearsays you ferreted give off that such is the case; but perhaps you ignored (or are unaware) of other insights to balance your perception. One such mistake is highlighted below:

amnestylaw:
Is it not the bible that says "god is not human that he should lie" and the same bible says " i (jesus) and the father are one? Now tell me how someone of the same status with god who is not human should be human?

Have you carefully read the Bible, or just picking whatever you like to make up for your humanist gaps? John 1:14 - answers your question aptly: "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us". I anticipated you'd just gloss over such verses, which is no worry at all.

rasputinn:
Surely this thread will get to the 100th page in no time.Very sensitive topic but I don't think the payment or non payment of tithe amongst others should make any serious christian decide to stop going to church.We all at one time or the other have sat in our churches to listen to our pastors make preachments that we did not totally agree with,but we didn't leave our churches.When such occur,the thing to do is to follow the example of the Berean brethren,go home,take your bible and prayerfully cross check the facts from the Bible against whatever your pastor preached that you disagree with,except of course the OP wants to tell us that his church is not a bible-believing church or that there's more to this post than meets the eye

You read my mind precisely.

huxley2:
So far, I agree. That ties in with the definition of nature I gave earlier, according to which nature is matter, energy, time, space, events, experience.

huxley2:
Why don't you have objects as part of nature.

Pastor AIO:
The point I'm making is that defining something as 'everything', such as when you say Nature is Everything that exist, is the Grandaddy of all absurdities.

Pastor AIO:
A definition does cannot include everything that exists. Your definition of Nature is not a definition at all.

Pastor AIO:
Secondly, having pointed that out I tried to help out with a possible definition of Nature. Nature occupies space and time and Natural influences traverse Space and Time (in a futureward direction). This is the definition that we are working with at the moment and any reference to any other definition will only confuse issues because with differing definition what I'm calling nature might not be what you are calling nature.

Pastor AIO:
With a definition of Nature you do not need to have full knowledge of all the laws of nature. Once you have defined Nature when you discover a Law you can then determine whether it is a natural law or some other kind of law.

Pastor AIO:
Once you have the definition of Nature you don't need to know every natural thing that can possibly happen. When you come across something you can assess against your definition whether or not it is Natural.

Are we missing something . . . or the gist has been turned around?

toneyb:
What evidence do we have for any of these particular propositions?

What evidence do you have that God does not exist independent of your atheistic approval or belief?

Hi again Mad_max,

[quote author=Mad_Max link=topic=280962.msg4014219#msg4014219 date=1244743376]Brain power? Not where I was going at all.[/quote]My apologies - I already noted that I may be wrong:
[list][quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=280962.msg4005955#msg4005955 date=1244633569]. . . methinks the 'supernatural' is not all about what is 'spiritual' or about relationships narrowed down to brain activity and power. No, I'm not saying that Mad_Max had narrowed it down to that extreme;[/quote][/list]
Perhaps I noted the connection between the brain and such relationships merely from your emphasis thereto. However, let's see some other matters that we may need to touch upon:

[quote author=Mad_Max link=topic=280962.msg4014219#msg4014219 date=1244743376]But I find, when posting on an atheist's thread, it's better to keep things simple. But there appears to be a relationship between the spiritual and the brain.[/quote]Indeed, there's always a need to keep things simple enough while avoidng the error of over-simplifying issues. There is indeed a relationship between the spiritual and the brain - and perhaps one reason while some atheists may assume that the 'supernatural' is a natural phenomena that is not yet understood within naturalistic terms. It is this tendency that we should watch out for, and try to always maintain a balance so that undue polarisations do not obscure the gist of the discussions.

[quote author=Mad_Max link=topic=280962.msg4014219#msg4014219 date=1244743376]I may be wrong but I think the spiritual's what the poster's talking about and not other 'unknown, 'unnatural' phenomena like, say, UFOs.[/quote]Agreed.

[quote author=Mad_Max link=topic=280962.msg4014219#msg4014219 date=1244743376]If we're using just 10% of our brains one wonders what people would be capable of with 50%. All known physical laws are based on the interaction of that 10% with the world. Perhaps 50% would enable man to, oh,I don't know, levitate, walk through walls, walk on water? That would change those laws, wouldn't it? It would turn every single thing science knew upsidedown. What if man were functioning at 100% brain capacity? What would we be then? I'm almost certain the unseen spiritual reality superimposed on this world would be plain to see, since the facility to interact with it and process it is in the brain as well as the spirit. One has to wonder why we're using just 10%, what separated us from the remaining whopping 90%. One has to wonder what God originally created when he made man, what He intended man to be. If we have been reduced to a 10th of what we originally were, perhaps everything in our orbit was also reduced to scale.[/quote]For the sake of analogy, we might assume that we use just 10% of our brains - as long as the essential message of what we're saying is conveyed. However, we might sometime along the line need to correct this idea - and here are just two sources among thousands that do not applaud the '10%-use-of-the-brain' idea:

[list]

Do People Only Use 10 Percent Of Their Brains?

. . .
Though an alluring idea, the "10 percent myth" is so wrong it is almost laughable, says neurologist Barry Gordon at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore. Although there's no definitive culprit to pin the blame on for starting this legend, the notion has been linked to the American psychologist and author William James, who argued in The Energies of Men that "We are making use of only a small part of our possible mental and physical resources." It's also been associated with to Albert Einstein, who supposedly used it to explain his cosmic towering intellect.

"It turns out though, that we use virtually every part of the brain, and that [most of] the brain is active almost all the time," Gordon adds. "Let's put it this way: the brain represents three percent of the body's weight and uses 20 percent of the body's energy."

Although it's true that at any given moment all of the brain's regions are not concurrently firing, brain researchers using imaging technology have shown that, like the body's muscles, most are continually active over a 24-hour period. "Evidence would show over a day you use 100 percent of the brain," says John Henley, a neurologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. Even in sleep, areas such as the frontal cortex, which controls things like higher level thinking and self-awareness, or the somatosensory areas, which help people sense their surroundings, are active, Henley explains.

[/list]
source: Scientific American, February 7, 2008

[list]

The Ten-Percent Myth

Claim: We use only ten percent of our brains.

Status: False.

. . .

1) Brain imaging research techniques such as PET scans (positron emissions tomography) and fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) clearly show that the vast majority of the brain does not lie fallow. . .

[/list]
source: http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp

Anyhow, this does not mean that you haven't communicated - actually, you have. There's this tendency for many people to reduce all relationships to a unit and see nothing beyond that reductionism. The basic question is: can all reality of all possible worlds be contained within that reductionism?

[quote author=Mad_Max link=topic=280962.msg4014219#msg4014219 date=1244743376]But knowing this poster's propensity to ridicule all things 'God' I wonder what this thread is about exactly. He's a fanatical atheist. And atheism is a religion; the sum of its religious credo is: Empirically speaking, there is no God. He's humanity's saddest invention, our very own mechanical baby pacifier.[/quote]Lol, I need some time to disgest those lines. However, this thread emerged from discussions on another thread, and I frankly think it is germane to our collective understanding about spiritual things as well. However, we should bear in mind that not all atheists hold atheism as a religion - and the few I've actually spoken to are far more rational in dialogues that the many we commonly encounter. I trust you'll come across some of these folks sooner than later - I bet you, they're quite informed and known what they're talking about when discussing their own type of atheism. Just my observation.

[quote author=Mad_Max link=topic=280962.msg4014219#msg4014219 date=1244743376]And his atheism is based on what? Science and borrowed attitudes from genuine atheists. Steven Pinker is a painfully brilliant man, a scientist I deeply respect. A sincere atheist. But even he acknowledges there are mysteries and things for which science has no explanations. The scientific community has believers and non-believers alike, like any other community.And a scientific truth is 'right' or 'true' only for a single shining instant, and then another scientific truth takes its place. The best, the most gifted scientists know everything bears a question mark, that there are no absolute truths in science. And this is the standard by which God is judged?[/quote]I share your concerns, and must say you're quite articulate.

[quote author=Mad_Max link=topic=280962.msg4014219#msg4014219 date=1244743376]Feel free to be an atheist, but God exists independent of your approval or belief. He isn't waiting for your say-so to suddenly spring to life. Yes, Christianty has its problems. There's lies, dogma, legalism, ignorance, self-deceit, fraud, deception and more. Whatever man may have made of it, it has as its foundation Jesus Christ, who built an agonising bridge to God with his priceless blood. You come to the table with only yourself, damaged goods, and you get everything. I don't mean money or cars or castles; those things have their place, but in real terms they're utterly worthless. What is there to ask, what is there to ponder, but to take what has been freely given? I pray that God finds you. When he does, you will count every single year of your life you did without Him as loss.

In the meantime, there's nothing wrong with cautiously entertaining the possibility, however slim, that perhaps half the world isn't deluded. That perhaps, in spite of everything, the supernatural and the spiritual exists, and God reigns utterly supreme therein.[/quote]Wow! I very much like your closing remarks - could I borrow to keep in my diary? Well done.

jagunlabi:
Banom,what the world needs is people deriving their spirituality from the sense of ONENESS,instead of deriving from the sense of SEPARATENESS,as these two dogmatic religions both represent and promote.
If mankind can somehow awakens to the fact that we are all one,and that what i do to others i do to myself,the world will be a lot more peaceful.

It is not as simplistic as you put it. One might say, easier said than done. Every worldview today has the distinctives of these two things: 'oneness' and 'separateness' - these are the very things that define identities and the same reasons why an atheist would want to separate from theists. Not all atheists hold the same outlook at life, and certainly not all theists are of the same worldview. Oneness and separateness pervade every single identity you can think of, and there's no need for one to assume that these "problems" are peculiar to only Christianity and/or Islam.

Hallo banom,

I understand you're canvassing for atheism, but reading through your submission simply renders your type of atheism uninformed and rather more problematic than tending to a solution. Let's see:

banom:
I am writing this in defence to atheism and to show how it can bring a lasting peace ,end ancient enemity,unite and broker out coperation between christians and islam and save the world from endless bloodshading,war, enemity,conflict, fight and hatrade this two amoral religious groups have put the world into,

First, it is not 'Christians and islam', rather should be 'Christians and Muslims'. Without religion, people have gone to war and a lot of people on Nairaland still express hatred one way or another - whether it discussions on sports, romance, or politics. Two religious groups may be opposed to one another; but your arbitration does not seek to understand them before assuming that atheism solves the problem. Indeed, we know that atheists are not all agreed in their world views or even professional vocations.

banom:
Before i start, I want to say it loud that christians and Islams are the worst and highest enemies on earth,

You have a mindset, don't you?

banom:
There is no common line of agreement beween the two religions even though they claim to be worshiping the same God, there is a strong unending enemity that exist between the duo, they hate ,fight, kill, destroy each other, and as it stands now, even if Jesus christ and Mohamed comes out to make peace between them selves, IT WILL NEVER WORK, a christians sees an islam as a person following DEVIL, and an islam sees a christians as a person following a wrong religion, so there is none but only one way this two amoral groups can be reconcilled, AND THAT WAY IS ATHEISM,

I can't laugh at your simplistic solution enough. How does a denial of belief in God solve differences between two theistic worlviews? You just assume that you problems are solved as soon as you introduce atheism, and I doubt whether you even understand the atheism you carry at all before advertising it. This is not the way to broker resolve - it only adds to the problem.

banom:
ATHEISM means NOT BELIEVE in the existence of a supernatural, consequently, there is absolutely nothing or no one to worship, and i want to make it clear that christans and Islams are not worshipng any supernatural bein, they are following and worshing Jesus christ and Mohamed,

Atheism does not mean "not believe" - you need to understand your own worldview before embarrassing it further in public. Atheism clearly is the denial of the existence of God and the supernatural. Slice it whatever way you may, that is what you'll find it assumes at the end of the day. To deny the supernatural is a chosen position, not an informed one.

banom:
Once a person turns to an atheist,he wouldn't need to follow any one,hate or kill any body in the name of religion, he/she sees every person as his fellow humanbein , he coperates with each other with a sound objective mind, and not the amoral way these two religious groups sees each other,

Becoming an atheist does not turn someone into the sort of automaton you prescribe, dude. Atheists are still human beings, and when exposed to the same experience as everyone else, they would still do the very same things you deny.

banom:
Finally, i advice all you christians and Islams to turn to Athiests so you can become one,love yourselve,stop fighting and killing yourselves and save the world from the troubles and wars you have put it into through your senseless religiously motivated believes.

If only you were informed about your own brand of atheism before exposing it the way you did, perhaps you would not have expressed how religious senseless your motive is. But there's hope you'll learn to reason about issues before polarising your thoughts.

Cheers.

@imhotep,

How body? Been quite a while, and I trust you're doing well?

imhotep:
Please read the following story slowly and meditatively ==>

For all his holiness, the Master seemed vaguely opposed to religion. This never ceased to puzzle the disciples who, unlike the Master, equated religion with spirituality.

“Religion as practiced today deals in punishments and rewards. In other words, it breeds fear and greed - the two things most destructive of spirituality.”

Later he added ruefully,

“It is like tackling a flood with water; or a burning barn with fire.”

Actually, I'd hoped to see something different. . . maybe a bit more involved. No doubt, you might have something to enlighten us with later (considering you requested the reader to read it slowly and meditatively ).

Anyways, just wanted to add, though: religion does not destroy spirituality. In my view, the former flows out of the latter - I had in mind James 1:26 & 27. There's a difference between 'vain religion' and 'pure religion', but let's quote both verses to see --

        If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue,
        but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.
        Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this,
        To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to
        keep himself unspotted from the world.

Indeed, there's a 'religion' that tends to vanity and may be said in this regard to be opposed to true spirituality. However, a healthy spiritual lifestyle results in 'pure and undefiled religion' such that consideration for the less privileged and unworldliness are its hallmark. In this view, I don't think it is quite balanced to say that, on the whole, religion destroys spirituality.

@Pastor AIO,

I was waiting to see how your reply to huxley2's turn out. Yours is appreciated, and I'd just like to make a comment on the episode of definintions.

____________________________

@huxley2,

huxley2:
[quote author=Pastor AIO link=topic=279631.msg4008705#msg4008705 date=1244660636]First the word definition. Definition, by definition ( ) puts a limit around something. De - Fine. -Fine is the end, the limit, the boundary. In-finite. Is without boundary, without limit. So when you define something, you give it boundaries. Not only do we know what it it but also we know what it is not. We know that beyond certain boundaries what we find is no longer a part of the de-fined thing.

A definition does cannot include everything that exists. Your definition of Nature is not a definition at all.

Ah, you are now try to play semantics now, aren't. "Definitions" encapsulate our way of understanding the world and reality. "Defintions" do not instantiate reality. So by making the object contingent on its semantic definition is wrong. You approach would suggest that an entity only comes into existence after it has been defined. This is clearly absurd.[/quote]No, huxley2. I don't think you got his (Pastor AIO's) point at all. I may be wrong, but it does not appear that he inferred that definitions 'instantiates' reality; nor did he argue that 'an entity only comes into existence' after it is defined.

Definitions are necessary so as to make informed statements about whatever phenomena may exist or be experienced. We first experience or encounter something before proceeding to identify or define it - that's the point I think Pastor AIO was making. He did not suggest that a definition brings something (or anything) into existence. It is when we seek for meaning in what already has been encountered in existence that definitions come into play. By extension, it is this quest for meaning that necessitates a distinction between 'natural' and 'supernatural'.

Again, I may be wrong - but that is what I'd picked up from Pastor AIO's post.

[quote author=William_C link=topic=279631.msg4007650#msg4007650 date=1244649231]Hi pilgrim.1

I have been busy for the last 72 hours and I can see that the discussion has taken a new twist but it is still very interesting.[/quote]Hello William_C,

Glad to know you're doing okay and glancing over to get the gist between busy schedules. We all get busy sometimes, and look forward to your chipping in comments when you can manage to get some time off. Enjoy.