- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
18 Aug 15
Originally posted by JerryHI postulate the existence of a bone china teapot orbiting Mars.
If gods are not supernatural, if they are part of nature, then they are not fictional. If they are part of nature then they can be see, tested, confirmed, and understood.
This object is entirely within the laws of nature and is not in any way supernatural.
Is this object real or fictional?
Your argument is disproven.
18 Aug 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeNow if you can observe or explain who made the china and how it got into orbit around mars it's not supernatural. If however you are saying there is no maker of the china and no observation possible of the china, you've got a supernatural bone china tea pot.
I postulate the existence of a bone china teapot orbiting Mars.
This object is entirely within the laws of nature and is not in any way supernatural.
Is this object real or fictional?
Your argument is disproven.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
18 Aug 15
Originally posted by JerryH/Picard double facepalm.
Now if you can observe or explain who made the china and how it got into orbit around mars it's not supernatural. If however you are saying there is no maker of the china and no observation possible of the china, you've got a supernatural bone china tea pot.
You keep using that word [supernatural]...
I do not think it means what you think it means.
18 Aug 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeIf you can see the object or otherwise infer it's existence then it's real. If you can't then it's fictional. If you say that it's fictional and that it exists then it's supernatural.
/Picard double facepalm.
You keep using that word [supernatural]...
I do not think it means what you think it means.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
18 Aug 15
Originally posted by JerryHSigh...
If you can see the object or otherwise infer it's existence then it's real. If you can't then it's fictional. If you say that it's fictional and that it exists then it's supernatural.
Look... I/we have been debating on these forums about these topics for at least a decade.
I/we use the internationally recognised meanings of the words theist and atheist that
are agreed and used by national and international atheist organisations and indeed by
various dictionaries and encyclopaedias.
WE all know what we mean when we use these terms in discussions with each other.
YOU seem to think that these words should mean something else.
Good for you. I/we don't care.
I am going to be using the same meanings tomorrow as I was using yesterday and
I will still be using those same meanings/definitions 10 years from now.
You can argue with me as much as you like, this will never change.
Because this is about communication, and these words have a generally recognised meaning
that is agreed upon and if I start using those words differently people are not going to understand
what I mean.
Your attempts to try to get us to accept your own weird personal definitions of these words,
would be completely pointless even if I didn't think your arguments were nonsense.
I have told you what these words mean. If you don't like it, there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.
Accept these meanings and move on, or be forever misunderstood.
Your choice.
19 Aug 15
Originally posted by divegeesterAre you a buggsynariest?
1. Is not offensive; it is one of the logical outcomes from your silly premise about the potential existence of 'other bunnies named bugs' and therefore the parallel between theism and buggsyism is reasonable.
2. So you aren't comparing the non-belief in buggsyism as a parallel with atheism after all then?
3. You are being offensive, do you think I'm lying when I'm saying you are being offensive?
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
19 Aug 15
Originally posted by JerryHSupernatural means outside or beyond the natural. Something is supernatural if it doesn't exist in the natural world (though we can imagine an interaction). A tea pot orbiting a planet is clearly inside the natural realm, and so can never be considered supernatural, whether you can detect it or not, and whether you believe it exists or not.
If you can see the object or otherwise infer it's existence then it's real. If you can't then it's fictional. If you say that it's fictional and that it exists then it's supernatural.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
19 Aug 15
Originally posted by lemon limeIf you believe god(s) exist, you're a theist.
So... if someone believes God does (or gods do) not exist he/she is not an atheist?
If you believe that god(s) do not exist (same as, you don't believe the claim that god(s) exist), you're an atheist.
This is not all that complicated.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29598
19 Aug 15
Originally posted by lemon limeI think you religious chaps get rather befuddled when we use the word 'belief.' (It has different connotations for us).
So believing god(s) do not exist is a belief.
So, instead of 'I believe God does not exist', consider instead:
I think God doesn't exist.
It is my educated opinion that God doesn't exist.
I am unconvinced by your argument that God exists. (My personal favourite).
At this point in time i extrapolate that God doesn't exist.
God? Nah.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeWell sure, there can be many ways of saying you believe there is no god (or gods). I don't quite understand the aversion many atheists have to calling this a belief. But I suspect it has something to do with an unsavory connotation many atheists have ascribed to the word 'belief' when talking to and about Christians.
I think you religious chaps get rather befuddled when we use the word 'belief.' (It has different connotations for us).
So, instead of 'I believe God does not exist', consider instead:
I think God doesn't exist.
It is my educated opinion that God doesn't exist.
I am unconvinced by your argument that God exists. (My personal favourite).
At this point in time i extrapolate that God doesn't exist.
God? Nah.