Ancient history suggests that atheism is as natural to humans as religion

[metacrock]

Not so very different. Both are concerned with the purported existence of a non-natural world.

Religion: 1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. (Oxford Dictionary)

Superstition: 1. excessively credulous belief in and reverence for the supernatural. (Oxford Dictionary)

sorry I disagree.

(1) God is not non natural. That's a late concept that comes from modern era mainly the enlightenment. There was already a couple of thousand years of talk about God before anyone suggested that God is opposed to nature. God created nature no reason to thin He's opposed.

(2) there is no reason to think forces of fate in superstition are not natural

(3) "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. " God is not "superhuman." That's a magnification of man but God is the basis of reality. you used Oxford Dictionary and that is about popular usage you need Westminster theological dictionary.

(4) your link from God to SN is bogus. "excessively credulous belief in and reverence for the supernatural" that does not make the basis for the link explicit.
sN was talked about hundreds of years before the idea of God being opposed to nature. SN is not supposed to nature..
SN is not superstition.

please read my essay on true Christian concept of the supernatural

Part 1

Part 2


Part 3

[metacrock]

That’s not the argument. My response was to the assertion that: ”belief in supernatural punishment has been instrumental in boosting co-operation in human societies". And while this may be true to a degree, the threat of “divine punishment” is no more justified than scaring children into behaving by threatening them with the equally fictional boogie-man.

that's not the point of religious belief. That's just kind of a side bar.

[metacrock]

Death. But does it transform or just terminate?

not death because that would not resolve it it's part of the problematic.

[eider]

God is not magic anyway. But you need to use specialized definitions from the field you are working in. Like if you are doing law you use blacks law dictionary not Webster's. so in theology use Westminster's theological dictionary. that wont give my definition but it will be better.

But I connected both with the word 'belief'.... not magic. True?

[metacrock]

eier I was speaking more to Tassman

[Tassman]

sorry I disagree.

(1) God is not non natural. That's a late concept that comes from modern era mainly the enlightenment. There was already a couple of thousand years of talk about God before anyone suggested that God is opposed to nature. God created nature no reason to thin He's opposed.

You’re assuming without substantive evidence that God exists.

(2) there is no reason to think forces of fate in superstition are not natural

There is no good reason to think that anything is not natural.

(3) "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. " God is not "superhuman." That's a magnification of man but God is the basis of reality. you used Oxford Dictionary and that is about popular usage you need Westminster theological dictionary.

‘Bald Assertion’ fallacy.

(4) your link from God to SN is bogus. "excessively credulous belief in and reverence for the supernatural" that does not make the basis for the link explicit.
sN was talked about hundreds of years before the idea of God being opposed to nature. SN is not supposed to nature..
SN is not superstition.

I’ll stick with the commonly accepted definition of ‘supernatural’: 1.(Of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature:a supernatural being. (Oxford Dictionary)

please read my essay on true Christian concept of the supernatural

Part 1

Part 2


Part 3

No thanks. I’ll forgo your ‘Proofs by Verbosity’.

[metacrock]

You’re assuming without substantive evidence that God exists.

wrong on2 counts

(1)I have substantive evidence I just don't have a good venue to display it.

(2) you asserted God is SN does that mean you assume God exists? Obviously I'm talking about the concept of SN

There is no good reason to think that anything is not natural.

that's what I just said

I said: (3) "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. " God is not "superhuman." That's a magnification of man but God is the basis of reality. you used Oxford Dictionary and that is about popular usage you need Westminster theological dictionary.

you say:
‘

Bald Assertion’ fallacy.

there is no such thing as a bald assertion fallacy but you are simply wrong what I said is neither a bald assertion or a fallacy.
again we are talking about the concept the assumption of God's reality has to be made to made to discuss the concept.

I’ll stick with the commonly accepted definition of ‘supernatural’: 1.(Of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature:a supernatural being. (Oxford Dictionary)

I've already proved it's wrong. read the link you are just saying "I'll stick with the popular misconception." just like an atheist love to be wrong.

No thanks. I’ll forgo your ‘Proofs by Verbosity’

ok class what kind of person makes bold aggressive comments and you prove him wrong refuses to read the evidence in front of his face? Um a Trump supporter?

[Tassman]

wrong on2 counts

(1)I have substantive evidence I just don't have a good venue to display it.

Whatever that means.

(2) you asserted God is SN does that mean you assume God exists? Obviously I'm talking about the concept of SN

OK! The “concept” of god is of a supernatural entity.

that's what I just said

I said: (3) "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. " God is not "superhuman." That's a magnification of man but God is the basis of reality. you used Oxford Dictionary and that is about popular usage you need Westminster theological dictionary.

you say:
‘

there is no such thing as a bald assertion fallacy but you are simply wrong what I said is neither a bald assertion or a fallacy.
again we are talking about the concept the assumption of God's reality has to be made to made to discuss the concept.

The issue is why, when there’s no substantive evidence of a deity existing, one would assume the existence of one in order to discuss it.

I've already proved it's wrong. read the link you are just saying "I'll stick with the popular misconception." just like an atheist love to be wrong.

All that you've “proved” is that you prefer your own, idiosyncratic understanding of “supernatural” for reasons of your own, rather than accept the commonly accepted definition of “supernatural”.

ok class

Playing to the gallery are we?

what kind of person makes bold aggressive comments and you prove him wrong refuses to read the evidence in front of his face? Um a Trump supporter?

The kind of person who can’t be bothered wading through paragraph after paragraph of pretentious, pseudo-intellectual verbiage.

[Adrift]

The kind of person who can’t be bothered wading through paragraph after paragraph of pretentious, pseudo-intellectual verbiage.

Why do you continue visiting this forum if you think any explanation from a Christian is pretentious, pseudo-intellectual verbiage. What do you get out of your exchange with people with varying beliefs than your own here? Is it just an ego stroker for you, knowing that you're so much more intellectual, and so less pretentious than those you debate with?

[metacrock]

Whatever that means.

It means I don't know what board to put God arguments on.

OK! The “concept” of god is of a supernatural entity.

Yes but that does not mean it's not present in the natural or that it's not natural.

The issue is why, when there’s no substantive evidence of a deity existing, one would assume the existence of one in order to discuss it.

there is substantive evidence. a ,lot, I have 52 arguments. tell me where to put a God argument and we can go to town.

All that you've “proved” is that you prefer your own, idiosyncratic understanding of “supernatural” for reasons of your own, rather than accept the commonly accepted definition of “supernatural”.

that is because you did not read the evidence and you pretend it doesn't exit. I linked to a long 3 part essay that draws upon the history of the term and proves it using both ancient and modern sources, you do not have an argument you have avoided answering my argument.

evidence part 1

Part 2

Playing to the gallery are we?

if you are going to make such instructive mistakes

The kind of person who can’t be bothered wading through paragraph after paragraph of pretentious, pseudo-intellectual verbiage.

how do you know it's pretentious if you haven't read it? you have not. one is only pretensions if one really doesn't possess the erudition one claims to possess. I was Ph.D. candidature in history of ideas and Masters degree in theology where I specialized in history of doctrine. that is not pretension it's expertise. where is your expertise?

[metacrock]

Why do you continue visiting this forum if you think any explanation from a Christian is pretentious, pseudo-intellectual verbiage. What do you get out of your exchange with people with varying beliefs than your own here? Is it just an ego stroker for you, knowing that you're so much more intellectual, and so less pretentious than those you debate with?

2 thumbs up

[Tassman]

Yes but that does not mean it's not present in the natural or that it's not natural.

So the supernatural god is simultaneously both “natural” and “supernatural” in your view...rather like the alleged Hypostatic Union of the God/Man Jesus. IOW: A total contradiction.

there is substantive evidence. a ,lot, I have 52 arguments. tell me where to put a God argument and we can go to town.

WOW! 52 arguments for the existence of a deity: “Having a firm basis in reality and so important, meaningful, or considerable” as the Oxford Dictionary defines “substantive”. What a relief for believers that they no longer need rely merely on faith.

that is because you did not read the evidence and you pretend it doesn't exit. I linked to a long 3 part essay that draws upon the history of the term and proves it using both ancient and modern sources, you do not have an argument you have avoided answering my argument.

evidence part 1

Part 2

how do you know it's pretentious if you haven't read it? you have not. one is only pretensions if one really doesn't possess the erudition one claims to possess. I was Ph.D. candidature in history of ideas and Masters degree in theology where I specialized in history of doctrine. that is not pretension it's expertise. where is your expertise?

You need to provide an ‘abstract’. No true scholar expects the reader to plunge straight into the heart of a verbose paper like yours without an introductory abstract....especially in a Discussion Group as per TWeb. Your efforts embody the Proof by Verbosity fallacy...Duane Gish would be proud of you.

BTW: Just curious: why have you cited Jerry Coyne’s, “Can Science Test The Supernatural, Yes!” - From his blog: “Why Evolution is True” to which, as it happens, I subscribe. He’s NOT arguing that the supernatural exists and therefore it’s testable as you imply...quite the reverse. Namely, that IF there was a supernatural influence in the natural world we would be able to detect evidence of it. And we don’t.

[metacrock]

So the supernatural god is simultaneously both “natural” and “supernatural” in your view...rather like the alleged Hypostatic Union of the God/Man Jesus. IOW: A total contradiction.

Do you not get that I'm challenging your paradigm? In fact I'm disproving it? why do you speak as though what I'm saying is such nonsense when it only looks so because you are refusing to understand my paradigm. Obviously if SN is not opposition to N than something could be both at the same time when you see the word SN you read "anti-nature." stop that. It doesn't mean that.

WOW! 52 arguments for the existence of a deity: “Having a firm basis in reality and so important, meaningful, or considerable” as the Oxford Dictionary defines “substantive”. What a relief for believers that they no longer need rely merely on faith.

atheists have always been so confused about the nature of faith. It never means without reason.

You need to provide an ‘abstract’. No true scholar expects the reader to plunge straight into the heart of a verbose paper like yours without an introductory abstract....especially in a Discussion Group as per TWeb. Your efforts embody the Proof by Verbosity fallacy...Duane Gish would be proud of you.

It's not a journal article it's a blog piece. By the time it's published it will have a whole book around it. anyone with any actual brains can figure out the gist from the fist paragraph. that's how all good expository prose works. Now you know.

BTW: Just curious: why have you cited Jerry Coyne’s, “Can Science Test The Supernatural, Yes!” - From his blog: “Why Evolution is True” to which, as it happens, I subscribe. He’s NOT arguing that the supernatural exists and therefore it’s testable as you imply...quite the reverse. Namely, that IF there was a supernatural influence in the natural world we would be able to detect evidence of it. And we don’t.

I don't imply that. I imply that he's an idiot, He is, and an arrogant one. I quoted him exactly. he says SN is disproved because Genesis is wrong. that's clearly not saying SN is true. But in saying that he shows that doesn't know what SN is

[metacrock]

Abstract: Ontologically SN is the ground and end of the natural. It is the power of God to raise human nature to a higher level of God consciousness, and that is the basis of realty and the end goal toward which human nature seeks.Phenomenologically that transaction of moving to a higher level plays itself out in or is manifested in mystical experience It's clearly not anti-nature because it works through nature and elevates rather than opposes nature.

[Tassman]

Do you not get that I'm challenging your paradigm? In fact I'm disproving it? why do you speak as though what I'm saying is such nonsense when it only looks so because you are refusing to understand my paradigm. Obviously if SN is not opposition to N than something could be both at the same time when you see the word SN you read "anti-nature." stop that. It doesn't mean that.

Not “anti-nature”, different from nature.

Your “paradigm” is based upon an idiosyncratic use of language. Words have specific meanings. This is why we have one word for natural, i.e. “[1] the material world, especially as surrounding humankind”. And supernatural i.e. [1] of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

atheists have always been so confused about the nature of faith. It never means without reason.

So you’re claiming that you have 52 credible, evidence-based substantive arguments for the existence of a deity. I’m sure you believe that.

It's not a journal article it's a blog piece. By the time it's published it will have a whole book around it. anyone with any actual brains can figure out the gist from the fist paragraph. that's how all good expository prose works. Now you know.

Self-published I presume.

I don't imply that. I imply that he's an idiot, He is, and an arrogant one. I quoted him exactly. he says SN is disproved because Genesis is wrong. that's clearly not saying SN is true. But in saying that he shows that doesn't know what SN is.

I don’t think YOU know what “supernatural” is other than some mystical construct of your own imagination. Jerry A. Coyne, is far from being an idiot. He’s a Ph.D, a Professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago and a member of both the Committee on Genetics and the Committee on Evolutionary Biology. And you’re misrepresenting his argument. That’s’ not what he’s saying.

His argument is that IF there was any ‘supernatural’ input in the ‘natural’ world we would be able to detect it through scientific testing, because it is the role of science to test and verify the facts of the natural world. There is no such evidence.

Abstract: Ontologically SN is the ground and end of the natural. It is the power of God to raise human nature to a higher level of God consciousness, and that is the basis of realty and the end goal toward which human nature seeks. Phenomenologically that transaction of moving to a higher level plays itself out in or is manifested in mystical experience It's clearly not anti-nature because it works through nature and elevates rather than opposes nature.

Subjective nonsense based upon mystical woo worthy of Depak Chopra himself.