A Gutsy Preacher

[Stravinsk]

Yep, electricity came to be understood as a natural phenomenon as a result of science, because there is something to measure.

No, to the average person living 400 years or so ago, it was understood as a natural phenomenon as well (lightening, electric fish, static shocks etc), but harnessing it and using it to the extent that it is today, to them, belonged in the realms of faith and the super natural. To their mindset - not nature.

That's the point I'm making. Something that was once not well understood has transcended from an oddity of nature to a well understood science. The only reason the way we live today is NOT considered supernatural is because it is common. Go back 400 years and describe it's widespread use and most everyone would have scoffed and laughed.

Most everyone but those who didn't assume to know everything about nature.

 

[MarkFL]

No, to the average person living 400 years or so ago, it was understood as a natural phenomenon as well (lightening, electric fish, static shocks etc), but harnessing it and using it to the extent that it is today, to them, belonged in the realms of faith and the super natural. To their mindset - not nature.

That's the point I'm making. Something that was once not well understood has transcended from an oddity of nature to a well understood science. The only reason the way we live today is NOT considered supernatural is because it is common. Go back 400 years and describe it's widespread use and most everyone would have scoffed and laughed.

Most everyone but those who didn't assume to know everything about nature.

What I meant was that as a natural phenomenon and hence because it could be measured, electricity came to be understood. This is not the case with the supernatural.

 

[Josiah]

Yes, I know from your past posts that you will default to the position that nothing is knowable, that there is no such thing as objective evidence, that atheism makes a claim, etc. I disagree with all these things.

But I'm still right, lol. And the point that YOU OPINION and choose to BELIEVE your opinions, friend, just underscores my point.

 

[Stravinsk]

What I meant was that as a natural phenomenon and hence because it could be measured, electricity came to be understood. This is not the case with the supernatural.

So it goes to ones definition of supernatural.

Would you say that saying a prayer over water and expecting it to have some sort of effect falls into this realm?

 

[MarkFL]

But I'm still right, lol. And the point that YOU OPINION and choose to BELIEVE your opinions, friend, just underscores my point.

So then you agree with the OP (see, that wasn't so hard, now was it?)...except you would encompass everything in your personal agnosticism.

 

[Stravinsk]

So it goes to ones definition of supernatural.

Would you say that saying a prayer over water and expecting it to have some sort of effect falls into this realm?

[MENTION=4]MarkFL[/MENTION]

 

[MarkFL]

[MENTION=4]MarkFL[/MENTION]

Please don't tag me unless it is necessary for me to respond to some technical issue. Now I've got an email to delete and a notification to remove, when I am following this thread anyway.

To me, praying over water and expecting some intrinsic change in the water has no meaning. What kind of change is expected? What does this have to do with the topic of the thread?

 

[Stravinsk]

Please don't tag me unless it is necessary for me to respond to some technical issue. Now I've got an email to delete and a notification to remove, when I am following this thread anyway.

To me, praying over water and expecting some intrinsic change in the water has no meaning. What kind of change is expected? What does this have to do with the topic of the thread?

Sorry Mark. No worries, won't do it again unless it's technical or it's your b day or something. Just thought maybe you missed or were avoiding my question.

The topic, or sub-topic is the supernatural, how one defines that and why. Just to be clear would you say that saying a prayer over water and expecting some kind of change falls into the realm of supernatural?

 

[MarkFL]

Sorry Mark. No worries, won't do it again unless it's technical or it's your b day or something. Just thought maybe you missed or were avoiding my question.

The topic, or sub-topic is the supernatural, how one defines that and why. Just to be clear would you say that saying a prayer over water and expecting some kind of change falls into the realm of supernatural?

People saying prayers with some expectation of some kind of supernatural intervention is not a supernatural thing...people and their actions are part of the natural order. If it ever comes to pass that such action leads to anything that can be demonstrated, then that would be a different matter.

 

[Tigger]

So an agnostic couldn't vote guilty to the standard of 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' to the verdict of murder because they didn't see the murder themselves actually committing the murder. I mean think about it. Even with a mountain of evidence an alternative scenario could be argued for each item. First the eye witness could be wrong or just lying. Even finger prints on the gun doesn't prove the accused was the one that pulled the trigger that fired the fatal shot. Even if the accused DNA were all over the victim doesn't prove that they killed them because just touching the victim didn't cause their death. Seriously if I had a loved one that was murdered I wouldn't want a true agnostic as one of the curers because they could cause a hung jury possibly leading the rightful murderer to get off due to a technicality.

 

[MarkFL]

Fortunately juries don't operate with the need for absolute certainty, they need only decide if there is any doubt in the integrity of the evidence.

 

[Stravinsk]

People saying prayers with some expectation of some kind of supernatural intervention is not a supernatural thing...people and their actions are part of the natural order. If it ever comes to pass that such action leads to anything that can be demonstrated, then that would be a different matter.

LOL. I think you know what I mean - I'm not talking about people being supernatural, but something happening to the water as a direct result of the prayer being supernatural.

And by the way, it *has* been demonstrated, already. Masaru Emoto did experiments on thoughts/spoken thoughts and water crystals and documented the results. We can see those results because of modern technology (high powered microscopes/freezing on demand) - but previous generations couldn't. Nevertheless, prayer over water and food is a tradition that dates back thousands of years - all those superstitious people appear to have been on to something that wasn't able to be clearly demonstrated at that time.

This is the point where confirmation bias is likely to kick in. If you google Emoto's name, I'll already inform that the wikipedia article is written by someone with a clear bias against it, based on who he chooses to quote and how he frames some of his statements and headers...ie "the scientific community says"..."scientific criticism".

Obviously anything approaching a miracle has to be poo poo'd because it doesn't fit someone's world view.

 

[MoreCoffee]

People saying prayers with some expectation of some kind of supernatural intervention is not a supernatural thing...people and their actions are part of the natural order. If it ever comes to pass that such action leads to anything that can be demonstrated, then that would be a different matter.

Prayers change the expectations and maybe the desires of the person praying. That may not be what the person praying wants but it is a change and it may have some good outcome.

 

[Josiah]

So then you agree with the OP (see, that wasn't so hard, now was it?)...except you would encompass everything in your personal agnosticism.

No. I just don't understand "gnosis" in that ABSOLUTE sense - in that radical philosophical sense. And I believe that you too believe, choose - we ALL do.

And of course, there is an enormous, radical difference between an Agnostic who believes we cannot be CERTAIN about the supernatural (and thus leaves open that possibility without necessarily choosing to embrace it) and the Atheist who makes a dogmatic, definitive position that there is no divine (perhaps without even an attempt to prove such true - to some philosphical absolute or at all)?

 

[MarkFL]

No. I just don't understand "gnosis" in that ABSOLUTE sense - in that radical philosophical sense. And I believe that you too believe, choose - we ALL do.

So, you claim knowledge for belief and belief for knowledge. That's quite the gymnastics there.

And I'm not even going to try to explain to you what atheism is again.

 

[Rens]

So, you claim knowledge for belief and belief for knowledge. That's quite the gymnastics there.

And I'm not even going to try to explain to you what atheism is again.

Oh I know that. It's a theism isn't it?

 

[Josiah]

No. I just don't understand "gnosis" in that ABSOLUTE sense - in that radical philosophical sense. And I believe that you too believe, choose - we ALL do.

So, you claim knowledge for belief and belief for knowledge. That's quite the gymnastics there.

No idea what you are claiming..... no idea what your reply has to do with what I've posted in this thread.

I'm not even going to try to explain to you what atheism is again.

I know what it is: is the the dogmatic insistence that there is no divine. A ("not") Theos ("God"). No God. As a point of of dogmatic insistence. It is the opposite position of Theism which affirms that there IS the divine. The op I think was simply pointing out that NEITHER actually has absolute proof (actually, neither usually even tries to prove it - certainly Atheists never do).

True - in an absolute, philosophical sense - there is no certainty: you can't know you even exist, you can't know what is or is not "real", in that sense, Soren Kirkegaard was right: we CHOOSE, we make "leaps of FAITH." You CHOOSE what you accept as real, etc. In that absolute sense, all are believers - at every point. I get it. He has a point. I just don't take it to the extreme, the absolute that the op does.

Now.... if you think the Theist should PROVE that his position is TRUE - okay, but then you have an equal burden: the PROVE the equal position of the Atheist position is TRUE - that there is no divine. Good luck. But it's absurd to argue ONE side has a burden of PROOF to this philosophical absolute but the opposite is somehow entirely off the hook. That's what I would call mental gymnastics. Or maybe just dishonesty or hypocrisy? But yes, you may CHOOSE to BELIEVE there is no divine..... and another may CHOOSE to BELIEVE there is the divine. Same/same.



- Josiah

 

[MarkFL]

Oh I know that. It's a theism isn't it?

Simply put, atheism means the absence of theistic belief. That's it. It doesn't mean anything else. Atheism is not a religion, a philosophy, a worldview, or anything similar. It is not the conviction that there are no gods, ghosts, angels, etc. Rather, it is the absence of a belief that these things are real...Atheism is nothing more than the lack of belief in a god or gods.

Atheism comes from the Greek "a - theos," and since the "a" prefix means "without" or "the absence of," we must first make sure we understand theism. Theism refers to the belief that some sort of god or gods exist. A theist is one who accepts the theistic claim (i.e., some sort of god or gods exist). An atheist is one who does not accept the theistic claim. That is, atheism means "without theism" and refers to the absence or lack of theistic belief.

Atheism does not require absolute certainty that god(s) do not or cannot exist. Some atheists may indeed claim such certainty. These individuals are sometimes described as "strong atheists." Nobody disputes the existence of such atheists. The point is that certainty is not a necessary condition of atheism. One who asserts that there "probably" is no god is still an atheist. In fact, one need not assert anything to be an atheist. One need only refuse to accept the theistic belief claim.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Simply put, atheism means the absence of theistic belief. That's it. It doesn't mean anything else. Atheism is not a religion, a philosophy, a worldview, or anything similar. It is not the conviction that there are no gods, ghosts, angels, etc. Rather, it is the absence of a belief that these things are real...Atheism is nothing more than the lack of belief in a god or gods.

Atheism comes from the Greek "a - theos," and since the "a" prefix means "without" or "the absence of," we must first make sure we understand theism. Theism refers to the belief that some sort of god or gods exist. A theist is one who accepts the theistic claim (i.e., some sort of god or gods exist). An atheist is one who does not accept the theistic claim. That is, atheism means "without theism" and refers to the absence or lack of theistic belief.

Atheism does not require absolute certainty that god(s) do not or cannot exist. Some atheists may indeed claim such certainty. These individuals are sometimes described as "strong atheists." Nobody disputes the existence of such atheists. The point is that certainty is not a necessary condition of atheism. One who asserts that there "probably" is no god is still an atheist. In fact, one need not assert anything to be an atheist. One need only refuse to accept the theistic belief claim.

It is an uphill battle to convince a Christian that atheism means little more than that the atheist does not believe in gods, goddesses, God or any supernatural supreme being(s).

 

[MarkFL]

It is an uphill battle to convince a Christian that atheism means little more than that the atheist does not believe in gods, goddesses, God or any supernatural supreme being(s).

You are a Christian, and you understand what atheism is...so there is hope that others might also be receptive to understanding what atheism really is. I am willing to cut theists, particularly Christians, considerable slack in misunderstanding atheism. I know all too well what they have been taught about atheism (and atheists) and why. As an atheist myself, this is where I should be expected to lead. Defining atheism accurately reduces epistemological confusion and reminds us where the burden of proof rests...but this is where the difficulty arises, because of the need to bestow the burden of proof where it shouldn't be.