The Atheist - Agnostic - Non religious thread

Dean wrote: The T wrote: If people could tell Central from South America, the problems would solve. ooh oooh I know sir! please sir, I know ... ask me ...              is it the Darién Gap?

If people could tell nonsense posts from real serious ones, all problems would solve.

Edited by The T - February 19 2013 at 18:25

^That's a true Admin right there...

Well yes. Though anyone from these areas would give you a more geo-political definition. Panama and Colombia being the border countries of both sub-continents.

Nogbad_The_Bad wrote: thellama73 wrote: ^how is the belief that everything can eventually be explained by science contradictory to a belief in god? It isn't, but in my case I don't believe that there is any creative supernatural being behind the universe, I have seen nothing to suggest that there is one. Everything provided by the spokespeople of God have been discredited. If there is a God then he isn't making his existence apparent to us so why should I believe in him/her/it?

Why must a creative being be supernatural? Sorry if this is pedantic, but that word has become a pet peeve of mine. I never hear people use it to refer to their own beliefs, only the beliefs of others and I think it is weasel word. Anything we can observe is by definition natural, so the minute we have evidence for something, it ceases to be supernatural. It's like saying "I don't believe that things that are impossible are possible." It's a tautology.

I don't think most religious people consider the things they believe in to be supernatural, just as they don't consider them to be impossible.

We are members of the Animal Kingdom. In some ways actually stupider than some animals.
        Believe it or not, i have met people who seriously believe there is a cat heaven. How do those cat spirits meow for their milk? Sounds like an interesting one.

The T wrote: Well yes. Though anyone from these areas would give you a more geo-political definition. Panama and Colombia being the border countries of both sub-continents.

Edited by Dean - February 19 2013 at 19:24

thellama73 wrote: Nogbad_The_Bad wrote: thellama73 wrote: ^how is the belief that everything can eventually be explained by science contradictory to a belief in god? It isn't, but in my case I don't believe that there is any creative supernatural being behind the universe, I have seen nothing to suggest that there is one. Everything provided by the spokespeople of God have been discredited. If there is a God then he isn't making his existence apparent to us so why should I believe in him/her/it? Why must a creative being be supernatural? Sorry if this is pedantic, but that word has become a pet peeve of mine. I never hear people use it to refer to their own beliefs, only the beliefs of others and I think it is weasel word. Anything we can observe is by definition natural, so the minute we have evidence for something, it ceases to be supernatural. It's like saying "I don't believe that things that are impossible are possible." It's a tautology. I don't think most religious people consider the things they believe in to be supernatural, just as they don't consider them to be impossible.

Some people believe in ghosts, or at least in the possibility of ghosts. Ghosts would fit the definition of supernatural even for those who do believe and I would expect even they would call ghosts 'supernatural'. Many people who believe in the supernatural (in general) call the things they believe in 'supernatural'.

Dean wrote: thellama73 wrote: Nogbad_The_Bad wrote: thellama73 wrote: ^how is the belief that everything can eventually be explained by science contradictory to a belief in god? It isn't, but in my case I don't believe that there is any creative supernatural being behind the universe, I have seen nothing to suggest that there is one. Everything provided by the spokespeople of God have been discredited. If there is a God then he isn't making his existence apparent to us so why should I believe in him/her/it? Why must a creative being be supernatural? Sorry if this is pedantic, but that word has become a pet peeve of mine. I never hear people use it to refer to their own beliefs, only the beliefs of others and I think it is weasel word. Anything we can observe is by definition natural, so the minute we have evidence for something, it ceases to be supernatural. It's like saying "I don't believe that things that are impossible are possible." It's a tautology. I don't think most religious people consider the things they believe in to be supernatural, just as they don't consider them to be impossible. Some people believe in ghosts, or at least in the possibility of ghosts. Ghosts would fit the definition of supernatural even for those who do believe and I would expect even they would call ghosts 'supernatural'. Many people who believe in the supernatural (in general) call the things they believe in 'supernatural'.

I believe in ghosts, but I'm sure there's a perfectly natural explanation.

I suspect the first person to see the northern lights would have been accused of believing in the supernatural. The claim "I don't believe in the supernatural, therefore I don't believe in the northern lights" is a non-equitur, just as "I don't believe in the supernatural, therefore I don't believe in ghosts" is a non-sequitur.

Dean wrote: The T wrote: Well yes. Though anyone from these areas would give you a more geo-political definition. Panama and Colombia being the border countries of both sub-continents. Geo-political borders are not natural and therefore subject to change - those borders do seem to present their own set of problems and causes for hatred, but those problems can be solved. If you wanted to drive from Panama to Colombia (or San Fransisco to Lima) the Darién Gap presents an insurmountable problem - the Pan-American Highway is unlikely to ever cross the gap. As someone not from those areas that seems to be a more immovable border.

Fantastic explanation. And also true. That doesn't change the fact, though, that the vision around the areas usually lies more on the side of the geo-political division.

But I always thought, the gap is not like A gap, the entire America is one big thing. The division between Asia and Europe is even less geographically clear-cut, isn't it?

thellama73 wrote: Dean wrote: thellama73 wrote: Nogbad_The_Bad wrote: thellama73 wrote: ^how is the belief that everything can eventually be explained by science contradictory to a belief in god? It isn't, but in my case I don't believe that there is any creative supernatural being behind the universe, I have seen nothing to suggest that there is one. Everything provided by the spokespeople of God have been discredited. If there is a God then he isn't making his existence apparent to us so why should I believe in him/her/it? Why must a creative being be supernatural? Sorry if this is pedantic, but that word has become a pet peeve of mine. I never hear people use it to refer to their own beliefs, only the beliefs of others and I think it is weasel word. Anything we can observe is by definition natural, so the minute we have evidence for something, it ceases to be supernatural. It's like saying "I don't believe that things that are impossible are possible." It's a tautology. I don't think most religious people consider the things they believe in to be supernatural, just as they don't consider them to be impossible. Some people believe in ghosts, or at least in the possibility of ghosts. Ghosts would fit the definition of supernatural even for those who do believe and I would expect even they would call ghosts 'supernatural'. Many people who believe in the supernatural (in general) call the things they believe in 'supernatural'. I believe in ghosts, but I'm sure there's a perfectly natural explanation. I suspect the first person to see the northern lights would have been accused of believing in the supernatural. The claim "I don't believe in the supernatural, therefore I don't believe in the northern lights" is a non-equitur, just as "I don't believe in the supernatural, therefore I don't believe in ghosts" is a non-sequitur.

Ah, I thought it was you who believes in ghosts but wasn't sure. If you don't believe ghosts are supernatural then that's fine by me. I do not believe ghosts exist so I do not believe they are supernatural either.... I guess what we need to do now is wait for someone to come along who does believe in ghosts and who does believe they are supernatural in origin...