Atheisms and the supernatural

[Polymath257]

One category it's anything not detected with senses. Ghost. Etc. The other is spirituality not explained (but felt by the five senses. The word seems closer to movies like Six Sense and such.

If they are 'felt by the senses', they are detected by the senses.

Either ghosts can be detected by some extension of our senses OR there is no reason to believe they exist at all. To have evidence *means* there is some way to detect them. And the only ways to detect them are either directly through our senses or by some mechanism we construct to produce effects we can detect through our senses.

So, for example, we cannot detect x-rays. But we *can* develop film or produce devices that detect x-rays and make it so we can see where they were. The same goes with neutrinos. We do not detect neutrinos with our senses. But we *do* detect them through things we make that are affected by neutrinos in ways we can then detect with our senses.

This is what it means to be 'physical' or 'natural': that it is possible to detect in some way.

But it is *also* what it means to *exist*.

 

[Heyo]

I disagree. Each of those answers encompasses everything in the universe with the exception of that one thing. That's not what an opposite is.

That's exactly what an opposite is in logic. It is the only consistent way to get logical answers.
There are many antonyms to a thing so there can never be a consistent opposite if you are searching for opposites in an antonym.
Defining NOT(x) as opposite guaranties consistency as NOT(NOT(x)) is always x. You don't get that with antonyms.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

X-ray and radiation affects the body. You can "see" the body by X-ray. Supernatural is what exists that one cannot detect whether looking through an X-ray or affected by radiation.

It sure sounds like you're saying that if there's empirical evidence for something, it isn't supernatural.

Demon spirit possession is another example of something supernatural.

Are you saying that "demon spirit possession" doesn't affect the body?

 

[wandering peacefully]

If they are 'felt by the senses', they are detected by the senses.

Either ghosts can be detected by some extension of our senses OR there is no reason to believe they exist at all. To have evidence *means* there is some way to detect them. And the only ways to detect them are either directly through our senses or by some mechanism we construct to produce effects we can detect through our senses.

So, for example, we cannot detect x-rays. But we *can* develop film or produce devices that detect x-rays and make it so we can see where they were. The same goes with neutrinos. We do not detect neutrinos with our senses. But we *do* detect them through things we make that are affected by neutrinos in ways we can then detect with our senses.

This is what it means to be 'physical' or 'natural': that it is possible to detect in some way.

But it is *also* what it means to *exist*.

I think part of the question was is lack of beliefs in gods mean one cannot still believe in the still unknown areas of all physics. I think it may still be possible to discard the ridiculous ideas which have been easily disproved without claims to understanding all of the universe and all energies.

Are we really that far aong that we can totally deny anything outside of known physics?

There really are a whole lot of people who experience things outside of the known reality and explainable physics. Things beyond the obviously explainable or just preconceived beliefs.

What do you think?

 

[paarsurrey]

X-ray and radiation affects the body. You can "see" the body by X-ray. Supernatural is what exists that one cannot detect whether looking through an X-ray or affected by radiation. Demon spirit possession is another example of something supernatural.

Sorry, humans could not before 1895 detect x-rays, please. That doesn't mean x-rays did not exist before that period. Right, please?
Ghosts do not exist, I understand. Right, please?
One may ,therefore, like to revise one's understanding of the word/term "supernatural", please?

Regards
____________
Wilhelm Roentgen, Professor of Physics in Wurzburg, Bavaria, discovered X-rays in 1895—accidentally—while testing whether cathode rays could pass through glass .Sep 17, 2015.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It sure sounds like you're saying that if there's empirical evidence for something, it isn't supernatural.

Not sure I'm getting you. If there's verifiable evidence by observation then it isn't supernatural?

Supernatural refers to things "outside" verifiable evidence (say physics) and observation. Something that exists that there's no evidence one can detect that it does.

Are you saying that "demon spirit possession" doesn't affect the body?

Demon spirit is another example of the supernatural. I'm not sure where I said it doesn't affect the body.

 

[Polymath257]

I think part of the question was is lack of beliefs in gods mean one cannot still believe in the still unknown areas of all physics. I think it may still be possible to discard the ridiculous ideas which have been easily disproved without claims to understanding all of the universe and all energies.

Are we really that far aong that we can totally deny anything outside of known physics?

There really are a whole lot of people who experience things outside of the known reality and explainable physics. Things beyond the obviously explainable or just preconceived beliefs.

What do you think?

I am quite sure that there are many physical phenomena that we do not know about yet.

But, again, those would be *natural* phenomena, not supernatural phenomena. If it is simply unknown physics, then it is natural. We just don't understand it yet.

That is a very different thing than being supernatural with is supposed to be beyond physics, period. Not just beyond the physics we currently understand, but any physics we will ever understand.

And, frankly, that is one of the reasons I consider the word 'supernatural' to be incoherent.

But, more so, most of the supposed supernatural phenomena, like ghosts, esp, clairvoyance, etc, have been studied and no effects beyond statistical chance, have been found.

Lack of evidence is not always evidence of absence, but when evidence is *expected* and none appears, it is good evidence of absence. This happened in science with the luminous ether, which was discarded when observations didn't go the way expected.

I am sure that if any actual evidence was found of ghosts, or any number of other supposed 'supernatural' phenomena, there would be HUGE fame *in the scientific community* to be had. It would be a wonderful set of new phenomena to explore and attempt to understand! Nobel prizes would be on the table. But, of course, actual evidence is required for that to happen.

 

[paarsurrey]

Heyo said: ↑
What is the opposite of 5?
What is the opposite of red?
What is the opposite of apple?

I shall use binary logic

Not 5

Not red

Not apple

What is the opposite of North Pole, please?

Regards

 

[Willamena]

That's exactly what an opposite is in logic. It is the only consistent way to get logical answers.
There are many antonyms to a thing so there can never be a consistent opposite if you are searching for opposites in an antonym.
Defining NOT(x) as opposite guaranties consistency as NOT(NOT(x)) is always x. You don't get that with antonyms.

Pink is not 5. Pink is not the opposite of 5. Where is the logic?

 

[paarsurrey]

It is enough to be reasonable, logic has its fallacies, I understand.
The opposite/antonym of a word, as I understand, has primarily to be one for its one meaning, if the word has many meaning, then it could have as many opposites also. If they don't find any exact opposite they give the closest ones, I understand. Right, please?

Regards

 

[firedragon]

Uh huh. Then why can't you show it?

already did

 

[firedragon]

You said...


When I asked if you could name some, you ducked and dodged and posted a link to a Pew Research report. That report did not substantiate your assertion.

However, it did say...

(your link) 10 facts about atheists

Atheists may not believe religious teachings, but they are quite informed about religion. In Pew Research Center’s 2019 religious knowledge survey, atheists were among the best-performing groups, answering an average of about 18 out of 32 fact-based questions correctly, while U.S. adults overall got an average of roughly 14 questions right.
​

You might want to keep that research from your linked site when you disparage non-muslim's knowledge about Islam.

In any case, would you now like to present some actual substantiation for your assertion quoted above?

Already did

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not sure I'm getting you. If there's verifiable evidence by observation then it isn't supernatural?

That seemed to be what you were arguing, which you just confirmed:

Supernatural refers to things "outside" verifiable evidence (say physics) and observation. Something that exists that there's no evidence one can detect that it does.

So then accepting that anything supernatural exists is necessarily irrational?

Demon spirit is another example of the supernatural. I'm not sure where I said it doesn't affect the body.

You just finished saying that because X-rays affect the body, that means they aren't supernatural. The implication is that supernatural things don't affect the body.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

So then accepting that anything supernatural exists is necessarily irrational?

I can't connect the dots. Supernatural is referring to things unobservable with the five senses (no evidence that one can test without bias). Whether supernatural exists is irrational or not, I'm not sure. I'm indifferent to it.

You just finished saying that because X-rays affect the body, that means they aren't supernatural. The implication is that supernatural things don't affect the body.

Not in a way we can determine there's a supernatural cause. When someone has an illness, the symptoms lead to the diagnosis so it can be treated. If someone says they experienced the supernatural, there's no evidence between what they say and what is supernatural to confirm their statement. Supernatural existence (generalize) is based on different criteria of testing than of physical evidence.

 

[Augustus]

The meaning of a word is the common usage of that word. It really isn't that difficult to figure out.

I can't say I agree with this view on language, it seems not to reflect my experience of how language is used.

The common usage of a term is a common way the term is used, it is not 'the' meaning.

'The' meaning only exists in the precise context it is used in. Outside of context a term has no meaning.

The common usage of 'the C-word', according to a dictionary is a woman's genitals, or an unpleasant person.

I grew up in a place where most of the time it was used to mean something completely different. No one felt the need to consult a dictionary on this.

'What are you ***** up to?' - meaning the same as 'how are you today my fine fellows?'

Playing golf - 'the 17th hole is a right ****' - meaning 'expect a great challenge to your golf game on the penultimate hole'

'Last night I was ****ed off my face' - meaning 'I had imbibed a great quantity of intoxicants'

*someone says something interesting*.... 'Ya ****!' - meaning 'That's a jolly fascinating point that I had not personally deduced previously'

And this is before we even look at additional layers of meaning beyond the purely denotative.

Language is a *convention*. Words do not have meanings other than how they are used.

I agree, but this is different from saying common dictionary usage is 'the' correct version.

"'Language does not exist; it is an abstractum. That we cannot enter twice the same river, applies also to language." "Language is no object of use, and no tool, it is no object at all, it is nothing but its use. Language is use of language" " Language came into being as a big city, room on room, window on window, flat on flat, house on house, street on street, quarter on quarter. . ." It is here that his insistence on the context comes in. With Frege and Wittgenstein he maintains that the basic unit of meaning is the sentence and that the word gains its meaning from it" On Fritz Mauthner's Critique of Language - Gershon Weiler

So, if everyone except you is using a word in a certain way, *that* is the definition of that word. if you are using it in a different way, then you are using it incorrectly.

If you can communicate information in a comprehensible way, there is no such thing as 'incorrect usage'.

Deviation from an arbitrary set of normative standards that almost everyone breaks every day in some form or another is not to be 'incorrect'.

When you are with friends you can use a word in a completely unique way that even your friends have never heard before and they can grasp its exact meaning. And if they can grasp its exact meaning it is not 'incorrect'.

The meanings of words also change over time and from location to location. But, if you are the only one using a word in a particular way, then you are the one abusing the language, not everyone else.

Using atheism as an example. Some people in the 1980s thought 'lack of belief' was a better usage than disbelief and so tried to popularise it.

Should we say they were 'misusing' language? Or using it for a particular purpose?

Trying to assign additional or different meaning to a term is simply use of language, not misuse.

 

[Heyo]

Pink is not 5. Pink is not the opposite of 5. Where is the logic?

You said it yourself:

Each of those answers encompasses everything in the universe with the exception of that one thing.

Or, in a more formal language, the opposite of 5 is the set of all things that are not 5. Pink is not the set of all things that are not 5.

Here is a more complete answer: Negation - Wikipedia
(Warning: includes logic. Logic is not for everyone.)

 

[Heyo]

I can't say I agree with this view on language, it seems not to reflect my experience of how language is used.

I think you do agree with @Polymath257, you just don't realize it.
When he says "The meaning of a word is the common usage of that word." he is saying it is the usage that is common in the current environment.
In that characteristic it performs its function to be understood.
Polymath257's critique at @PureX's use of language was exactly that it doesn't transfer understanding on RF.

The common usage of a term is a common way the term is used, it is not 'the' meaning.

On a worldwide platform, like RF, the most common usage is the correct one. As far as I know RF has no subcultural slang where words have different meaning (except from some oddities coined by @Revoltingest).

'The' meaning only exists in the precise context it is used in. Outside of context a term has no meaning.

Exactly.

 

[PureX]

So, if everyone except you is using a word in a certain way, *that* is the definition of that word. if you are using it in a different way, then you are using it incorrectly.

How, logically, does common usage become the determining criteria for what is correct usage? How does "common" = "correct".

I'll await your reasoning on this.

 

[PureX]

No, it is NOT biases that are happening here. It is simply a shifting usage of the words.

Do you really think using the word "queer" to refer to homosexuals is not biased??? Or that the use of the word "gay", is not irrational? And if I am to try and point this out to someone who now routinely abuses these words in this way, how can I possibly do that if, as you claim, their usage is now deemed "correct"?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Supernatural existence (generalize) is based on different criteria of testing than of physical evidence.

What are the criteria used to test the existence of supernatural things?