Marblehead Posted October 11, 2014 Terribly sorry, I did not understand your reply at all; was this perhaps an exam question? No problem. Sometimes I don't understand my responses either. Spontaneous living is so much fun! You never know what you are going to do until after you have done it. What I was speaking mostly to were your words "Atheists are indoctrinated with ideas ..." It are the religious folks who have been indoctrinated. If you have never been told fairy tales you will not believe in fairy tales. If you are told over and over again that there are gods eventually you will believe in the existence of gods. I mean, afterall, if so many people believe in them they surely must exist. Right? No proof needed - just faith. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dust Posted October 11, 2014 But, but, you don't have wings, do you? How are you going to flap something that doesn't exist? My ego is constantly flapping What I was speaking mostly to were your words "Atheists are indoctrinated with ideas ..." It are the religious folks who have been indoctrinated. If you have never been told fairy tales you will not believe in fairy tales. If you are told over and over again that there are gods eventually you will believe in the existence of gods. I mean, afterall, if so many people believe in them they surely must exist. Right? No proof needed - just faith. Someone who claims that God probably doesn't exist, and is classified atheist, is not necessarily using any idea other than "I don't believe in something I have no evidence for". Fair enough. I have absolutely no problem with that. I think I believe that God doesn't exist, though there's a little part of me that isn't 100% However, there are those Atheists or antitheists who are so bent on the utilization of science and technology and so convinced that science will be the thing to make all humans joyful that we can call them indoctrinated. They have no basis for this belief whatsoever, but have been taught it by celebrity scientists and wealthy business owners over the last few decades. They've been taught that science is the one and only answer. We can see that belief in Protector. It worries me a little. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beyonder Posted October 11, 2014 A more precise definition would be that atheism is a beliefsystem which makes ontological/cosmological claims, which can't be proven either way. Just like a religion relies on a Kierkegaardian leap of faith, so does atheism. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 11, 2014 My ego is constantly flapping Yeah, I have that problem now and again as well. Someone who claims that God probably doesn't exist, I hope you realize that I am staying as much to the left as I possibly can and still be honest with myself and those I am speaking with. I have no intention of trying to convince anyone of anything. It's just that all Atheists cannot be put into the same basket. (And you can't even put and Atheistic Anarchist in a basket - that wouldn't be allowed. Hehehe.) And I was not taught to be an Atheist. I just unlearned religion all by myself. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 11, 2014 A more precise definition would be that atheism is a beliefsystem which makes ontological/cosmological claims, which can't be proven either way. Just like a religion relies on a Kierkegaardian leap of faith, so does atheism. Well, that's close. "Belief system" is a tricky concept. Also, you are right, I cannot prove there are no gods. It would actually be impossible to do so. The best that could be done would be to say that I have never seen any proof that any exist. But, I need make no leaps of faith. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
iain Posted October 11, 2014 I mean, afterall, if so many people believe in them they surely must exist. Right? No proof needed - just faith. It is all indoctrination, that is why the more learned amongst us are nominated with phd, doctor of philosophy; it means heavily indoctrinated. Why the ph instead of a F? this is its self a matter of belief ... There is no differance to my mind, none what so ever, other than time and the meaning is always forgotten in time; as that is the nature of knowledge, it is transient. Show me a mathematical model which does not rely on a construct of faith and I will show you the axioms in which you must first believe to accept that model. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 11, 2014 (edited) It is all indoctrination, that is why the more learned amongst us are nominated with phd, doctor of philosophy; it means heavily indoctrinated. Why the ph instead of a F? this is its self a matter of belief ... There is no differance to my mind, none what so ever, other than time and the meaning is always forgotten in time; as that is the nature of knowledge, it is transient. Show me a mathematical model which does not rely on a construct of faith and I will show you the axioms in which you must first believe to accept that model. Good post. I don't even know how to respond. I agree about indoctrination. I'm no doctor but I used to play one with the ladies. Ooops. That was supposed to be - I used to play one on TV. Yes, the value of a degree is a matter of belief until proof is gained. I don't do the math. I can balance my check book though. Ah, yes, space/time. How can I say it. There was no god until after she created man and then man created her. Mutual creation? Oh, yeah, I do have a BA in BS. Edited October 11, 2014 by Marblehead Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Owledge Posted October 11, 2014 Strongly disagree. Of course I can say that it is a fact that nothing supernatural exists. And I just basically said it again. If it isn't natural it doesn't exist. Period. In other words, if it can't happen it won't happen. That is a fact. If your reality-observation actually was that good, you would have to know what kind of phenomena are referred to with the word "supernatural", and then that would mean you're merely playing word games. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 11, 2014 If your reality-observation actually was that good, you would have to know what kind of phenomena are referred to with the word "supernatural", and then that would mean you're merely playing word games. I am really very observant. That is a fact. (For a Westerner at least.) I don't need to see the phenomena that is supernatural because it doesn't exist. Again, I state, if it isn't natural it doesn't exist. No, I'm not playing word games. I am speaking to Taoist Philosophy, Materialism, Physicalism, and Atheism. I am NOT speaking from the perspective of a Christian or a Religious or Alchemic Taoist. I can't do that because I'm not one. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beyonder Posted October 11, 2014 Well, that's close. "Belief system" is a tricky concept. Also, you are right, I cannot prove there are no gods. It would actually be impossible to do so. The best that could be done would be to say that I have never seen any proof that any exist. But, I need make no leaps of faith. Indeed. There is no way to prove the issue either way, since the required evidence would be ontologically transcendent. We can't take an intellectual position outside of time/space, and as such, the issue remains unresolved. To me, the only justifiable position is agnosticism. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 11, 2014 To me, the only justifiable position is agnosticism. I am currently in discussion with an Agnostic at the other forum I am a member of. (I am just as much of an Atheist there as I am here.) Even though many of his thoughts are Atheistic he really wants to continue calling himself an Agnostic. And I'm not trying to convince him of anything either but I do say what I believe to be truth. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Owledge Posted October 11, 2014 I am really very observant. That is a fact. (For a Westerner at least.) I don't need to see the phenomena that is supernatural because it doesn't exist. Again, I state, if it isn't natural it doesn't exist. No, I'm not playing word games. I am speaking to Taoist Philosophy, Materialism, Physicalism, and Atheism. I am NOT speaking from the perspective of a Christian or a Religious or Alchemic Taoist. I can't do that because I'm not one. So then healing severe ailments through pure intention is by your definition natural. But still, why are you even (mis)using the term "supernatural" in a claim that those phenomena don't exist when you know very well what they are referring to? You are not criticizing the intended meaning, but the term, while playing dumb and focusing on the intended meaning. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 12, 2014 So then healing severe ailments through pure intention is by your definition natural. Okay, we are talking about Atheism, right? Not healing, either via Chi energy or Via modern Western medicine or anything else. Don't try to trick me up, Okay? But still, why are you even (mis)using the term "supernatural" in a claim that those phenomena don't exist when you know very well what they are referring to? You are not criticizing the intended meaning, but the term, while playing dumb and focusing on the intended meaning. I am not misusing the term, Supernatural, as viewed from a philosophical perspective, cannot exist. That would be saying that something unnatural could exist. It cannot. I'm not going to use the words you want me to use. I am going to use the words I prefer. I have never been dumb nor have I ever played dumb. I am stating my case. It is you who cannot handle the rebuttal. Please respond to what I have said and not to what I didn't say. Atheism is NOT a religion. That is my response to the thread title and the opening post. Shall we continue this discussion rather than try to psychoanalyze me? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Flolfolil Posted October 12, 2014 (edited) ... Edited March 5, 2015 by Flolfolil Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Owledge Posted October 12, 2014 Okay, we are talking about Atheism, right? Not healing, either via Chi energy or Via modern Western medicine or anything else. Don't try to trick me up, Okay? I am not misusing the term, Supernatural, as viewed from a philosophical perspective, cannot exist. That would be saying that something unnatural could exist. It cannot. I'm not going to use the words you want me to use. I am going to use the words I prefer. I have never been dumb nor have I ever played dumb. I am stating my case. It is you who cannot handle the rebuttal. Please respond to what I have said and not to what I didn't say. Atheism is NOT a religion. That is my response to the thread title and the opening post. Shall we continue this discussion rather than try to psychoanalyze me? This is not psychoanalysis, this is logic. It is pointless and misleading to say as an atheist you don't believe in the supernatural and then when asked say the term doesn't contain anything for you, because it doesn't exist. When I said supernatural, you should know damn well what I mean by that if you haven't lived in a cave all those years. And since you also talked about evidence, there is evidence for the existence of phenomena that are commonly referred to as supernatural. You then didn't explain what you understand with the term, but just claimed supernatural doesn't exist. That's wasting my time with pointless deceptive games. When someone says "Magic is real!", a fool says "No it's not!". A wise man asks what he means by "magic". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
iain Posted October 12, 2014 (edited) An little side note for any who might be interested ...Atheism as opposed to theism; when taken in a purely linguistic sense; makes use of a Sanskrit grammatical tool. The addition of an "a" in front of a word as an affix, denotes a negative; this is of Sanskrit origin not Latin.Sanskrit teachings of the period that concerns our recent history, that of the last few thousand years or so (a very short period) when relating to the nature of reality they include both Atheistic and theistic schools of thought. Another often argued point is the notion of a dualistic or non dualistic reality; I think a far more pertinent an issue.---What do the Tao philosophers say of theism? Edited October 12, 2014 by iain Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 12, 2014 Nietzsche himself was a gross failure. (Sorry, almost done reading one of his books and i had to vent my frustration with him somewhere, you gave me an opening ) You better be sorry!!!!! Oh, I agree, we can't always love Nietzsche because he pisses us off too often. But really, he was more optimistic about the future of humanity than just about any other philosopher I can think of. Even Camus wasn't that optimistic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 12, 2014 This is not psychoanalysis, this is logic. Spirituality exists only in the absence of logic. It is pointless and misleading to say as an atheist you don't believe in the supernatural and then when asked say the term doesn't contain anything for you, because it doesn't exist. "Supernatural" is a term used in the same context as "unnatural". I have said that it is not possible for anything unnatural to exist. There is no Easter Bunny, there is no Santa Claus, and there are no gods. Why would a non-existant thing be of concern to me? When I said supernatural, you should know damn well what I mean by that if you haven't lived in a cave all those years. I haven't lived in any caves but I have lived in Germany and that's almost the same thing. And since you also talked about evidence, there is evidence for the existence of phenomena that are commonly referred to as supernatural. Evidence that has been debunked over and over again but there are still people who hold to them because they have nothing else to hold to. You then didn't explain what you understand with the term, but just claimed supernatural doesn't exist. That's wasting my time with pointless deceptive games. Over and over again I state that if it isn't natural it cannot be. That means there can never be anything unnatural not supernatural. When someone says "Magic is real!", a fool says "No it's not!". A wise man asks what he means by "magic". Atheism is magic. It awakens one to reality. Just like the kiss for Sleeping Beauty. (Sleeping Beauty didn't really exist either.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
C T Posted October 12, 2014 Plenty of unnatural stuff happening all the time, imo. Supernatural has a different connotation altogether, no? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 12, 2014 What do the Tao philosophers say of theism? Well, you won't find much said about theistic concepts in either the TTC or The Chuang Tzu. That should tell you something. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 12, 2014 Plenty of unnatural stuff happening all the time, imo. Supernatural has a different connotation altogether, no? Fair question. Personally, I cannot separate "unnatural" from "supernatural" because they both have the same connotations in my mind. However, we can talk about "not normal" and find many agreements. So someone prays for something and their prayer was answered. That's supernatural, Right? Wrong. What happened was a result of cause and effect. What came to pass was going to happen anyway because of earlier causes. Or, the person actually took action after praying and themself caused the prayer to to materialize. But the person who prayed will firmly hold to the understanding that it was a supernatural event. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dust Posted October 12, 2014 (edited) I think perhaps some people use the word supernatural to refer to things which are not possible -- out of the area of natural (possible) occurrence -- and some use it to refer to things which are simply unexplained. Many things happen which we don't (yet) have an explanation for, and which (as I'm sure Protector would like to make clear) science might one day find an answer for. Until they are explained, they might be considered "supernatural" by some.\ Perhaps we could use the terms "impossible phenomena" and "unexplained (but existing) phenomena" For example, Me taking off and flying right now would be impossible. Also supernatural. Me jumping out of the window screaming "Hail penguins!" would be possible, but unexplained. And possibly construed as supernatural (some people would say I was possessed, some that I was on drugs, some that the devil had taken me, some that I'd just had enough...) It has occurred to me, again, recently, that most arguments people have are about definitions, not actual meaning or intent. Edited October 12, 2014 by dustybeijing 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
C T Posted October 12, 2014 (edited) "Yet" is a simple word, but one we should never discount lightly. As Bertrand Russell once said, "The world is full of magical things patiently waiting for our wits to grow sharper." Edited October 12, 2014 by C T 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 12, 2014 Perhaps we could use the terms ... "unexplained (but existing) phenomena" Yep. That works fine. But people like "Super" stuff. Bigger and more is always better. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
