Then why do you need an example of a scholar affirming the analytical definition I’ve already given? This is what confused me and made me think you cared about the scholars not having consensus.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"Supernatural" and Naturalism
- Thread starter Meow Mix
- Start date
Then why do you need an example of a scholar affirming the analytical definition I’ve already given? This is what confused me and made me think you cared about the scholars not having consensus.
Yes, typing on a phone screen. Probably autocorrected.
This is why I’m confused:
if I give an analytical definition, you request an example of a scholar.
if I warn that the scholars do not have a consensus, such that, sure, I can get you one (but you can find another one that says differently), then this is “sociological.”
so why ask for the scholar if any attempt to reasonably accomodate that is sociological?
if I give an analytical definition, you request an example of a scholar.
if I warn that the scholars do not have a consensus, such that, sure, I can get you one (but you can find another one that says differently), then this is “sociological.”
so why ask for the scholar if any attempt to reasonably accomodate that is sociological?
firedragon
Veteran Member
Err. Does it give your definition? Can you refer to the page number?
firedragon
Veteran Member
If you can't provide, and/or there is none, its alright. Just say there are none.
firedragon
Veteran Member
I will just respond to you and say that I did not say that you said people say this and that. You misquoted me. I will cut and paste my whole post.
Let me give you the reason. In defining naturalism, you spoke of what people are doing. Someone in some remote area may consider a plane magic because he is so primitive. Thus its subjective. This is not sound reasoning. This is exactly how sociology of topics work. You did the same thing with defining atheism and every time I got to the definition you kept saying some atheists do this, some do that, etc. Thats the reason.
I am not saying that you define yourself to take a top down approach, but you do. This is the argument you brought.
I completely disagree with that approach in definitions. If you are indeed taking a bottom-up approach, I would like to ask you a question.
Can you quote an authority who defines atheism to include beliefs in miracles? I said "definition", not what people do?
I’m not going through literature on my phone, I need to make sure what you’re even looking for. You just want some scholar giving the definition of atheism as being the lack of theistic beliefs, correct?
And it doesn’t matter to you that other scholars will say something different, correct? I don’t see the point since the definition I gave is analytical, but I can find a scholar that agrees if that is what you are looking for. If that is confirmed that is what I’ll do for you next time I’m at a keyboard
firedragon
Veteran Member
Rather than trying to insult me by making a caricature of myself sis, why not just respond to what I asked for?
Looking at your last post, if you are looking for a scholar that defines atheism “to include belief in miracles,” that we will not find, because nobody defines atheism that way. Otherwise my other most recent post stands. I can find you a scholar that defines atheism the way I have defined it (the lack of belief in gods). If that is what you want I will get you that.
I’m not trying to insult you.
I have to ask, is English not your first language? This is asked neutrally, not insultingly, but there is SOME kind of communication barrier happening here that I can’t figure out. I say a thing, you don’t actually understand my words. You say a thing, I respond, you claim I didn’t understand your words.
It’s not coming from me. People normally understand my posts very well, I’m very succinct. If we’re to work this out, we have to figure out what the communication problem is.
firedragon
Veteran Member
So do you now retract your argument that atheism includes miracles like teleportation and prophesying? This is the definition you have given. #219
No God definitions are a secondary matter. I am speaking about your specific claim. Anyway, I dont need a reference anymore. No problem.
Maybe we should just quit while we’re ahead.
You let me know if you still want a scholar that defines atheism the way that I do (to lack belief that a god or gods exist). If you do, then I will get you a scholar, though I do not understand why you want it. My definition is philosophically and analytically sound and it is exhaustive. But I will get the scholar if you want to see one agree with me.
If not, if we just for some reason just can’t understand each other, then we should just quit. I will see what you say later today as it’s sleep time.
@firedragon
You let me know if you still want a scholar that defines atheism the way that I do (to lack belief that a god or gods exist). If you do, then I will get you a scholar, though I do not understand why you want it. My definition is philosophically and analytically sound and it is exhaustive. But I will get the scholar if you want to see one agree with me.
If not, if we just for some reason just can’t understand each other, then we should just quit. I will see what you say later today as it’s sleep time.
@firedragon
firedragon
Veteran Member
Thats not what I asked for. I think you forgot the discussion.
There is a difference between;
“Atheism does not preclude belief in teleportation”
and
“Atheism includes belief in teleportation”
Do you agree there’s a difference? I said the first one, not the second one
firedragon
Veteran Member
Not relevant. Dont get angry, but its not relevant.
I am engaging you out of respect to you.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Alright. So can you give me an authoritative definition of atheism that has either one?
firedragon
Veteran Member
Great. Have a good night.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
We humans do also love our fictions and tales and also seem to enjoy when a good moral or two (a hint at utility) are thrown in. To the point that imagination shouldn't necessarily be discounted as, itself, "cognitively empty." The laws, cultures and governance of the worlds created within human minds, the creators of which then go on to share those worlds with others who also enjoy them (for example, "Star Trek" which there seemed to be an earlier reference to), are at least "something" - even as they are "not real" in the sense that they will never actually be a functioning part of the reality we experience. Though the fleshing-out of those worlds is what ultimately gives meaning to "gimbling" and the "wabes." Like the definitions you keep asking for, in other words. And I agree that without that fleshing-out, you're left empty-handed.
I think of the term "supernatural" and all that it encompasses exactly in that light. It is entertaining fiction. Who doesn't enjoy a good ghost story? But that's where it should end, I feel. Don't bring this stuff into the everyday and expect everyone to get psyched about it along with you. At that point it is really no different from an overzealous Harry Potter fan who suddenly starts pretending that Hogwarts is real, and that he's about to start his third year and go back to see all his wizard friends.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
When a human says as a designer science thought concepts I think I came from out of space.
It is not naturalism.
As we live inside filled in space by gas mass with water mass.
His design super in natural sends out and comes back in via design. Machines.
Science would say supernatural equals my machine as my machine by conditions is not natural.
I conjured manifested it by design not physical.
My magic would be his super claim to take the highest natural forms and force change by heated states upon it.
Heat removes its natural form yet magically the state re materializes when he cools it.
To the thinker human hence he said cold creation existed naturally yet applied heat had to have been how change allowed change.
So you cannot get colder than empty space.
So he says the most superior status is space womb.
Change he said in space obviously left his previous designer memories transmitted from earth.
Knowing daylight in mass stayed constant in a cycle.
So if you increase burn earths heavens it leaves earth communications in space. As earth is causing trails as it moves with its changed atmosphere..
Communications communicate to communications.
How the man designer invented con jured the supernatural in space equals to his machines.
As creation never owned super states. Scientists infer super powers in human science as humans.
Light is in a vacuum held constant so light would always equal light when earth is in travel. As we live inside of gases protected by water. Natural is the presence of light.
It is not naturalism.
As we live inside filled in space by gas mass with water mass.
His design super in natural sends out and comes back in via design. Machines.
Science would say supernatural equals my machine as my machine by conditions is not natural.
I conjured manifested it by design not physical.
My magic would be his super claim to take the highest natural forms and force change by heated states upon it.
Heat removes its natural form yet magically the state re materializes when he cools it.
To the thinker human hence he said cold creation existed naturally yet applied heat had to have been how change allowed change.
So you cannot get colder than empty space.
So he says the most superior status is space womb.
Change he said in space obviously left his previous designer memories transmitted from earth.
Knowing daylight in mass stayed constant in a cycle.
So if you increase burn earths heavens it leaves earth communications in space. As earth is causing trails as it moves with its changed atmosphere..
Communications communicate to communications.
How the man designer invented con jured the supernatural in space equals to his machines.
As creation never owned super states. Scientists infer super powers in human science as humans.
Light is in a vacuum held constant so light would always equal light when earth is in travel. As we live inside of gases protected by water. Natural is the presence of light.