Originally posted by vistesd
By non-supernaturalist I just mean that I do not admit any kind of supernatural category. Whatever is, is natural, part of nature.


There are many things that we do not know; there may be many things that we cannot know—the “grammar of our consciousness” may not be sufficient to ultimately decipher the whole of the larger “syntax of the universe”. But I see no reason to bring in the supernatural to fill the gaps.

We use 'supernatual' to talk about things we don't understand, at least
until we do, if God is real, wouldn't the acts of God be natural? 😉
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
It is a belief system that requires another to even exist.

As I have already pointed out, to call atheism a belief system is a mistake. It is erroneous as calling Orange Juice a way to get drunk.

Originally posted by KellyJay
We use 'supernatual' to talk about things we don't understand, at least
until we do, if God is real, wouldn't the acts of God be natural? 😉
Kelly

Most people do not use 'supernatural' in that fashion. In fact many people claim they do know things about God and that those things are supernatural.
Most people use 'supernatural' to mean 'it doesn't follow your rules so you cannot make claims about it'. Its a sort of universal 'logic doesn't matter' card.

If God were real, then he and his acts would be natural. Do you believe he is real? If so, do you believe he and his acts are supernatural? Why? I am sure there are aspects of physics you don't understand. Do you believe they are supernatural?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Most people do not use 'supernatural' in that fashion. In fact many people claim they do know things about God and that those things are supernatural.
Most people use 'supernatural' to mean 'it doesn't follow your rules so you cannot make claims about it'. Its a sort of universal 'logic doesn't matter' card.

If God were real, then he and his acts woul ...[text shortened]... re are aspects of physics you don't understand. Do you believe they are supernatural?

People have believed several things over time, but as our understanding
grows, less and less around us impresses us and is called supernatual.

I think God set in motion the universe and it is running like a clock, but
from time to time He can tweak it the mechanics or the events in it so it
does not behave according to its natural design or at least how we think it
should. For example if God raised someone from the dead, to me that isn't
a natural event.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
People have believed several things over time, but as our understanding
grows, less and less around us impresses us and is called supernatual.

I think God set in motion the universe and it is running like a clock, but
from time to time He can tweak it the mechanics or the events in it so it
does not behave according to its natural design or at least h ...[text shortened]... uld. For example if God raised someone from the dead, to me that isn't
a natural event.
Kelly

That's an intersting theory you have there. Do you have any examples and then any evidence of these 'tweaks'?

Originally posted by twhitehead
As I have already pointed out, to call atheism a belief system is a mistake. It is erroneous as calling Orange Juice a way to get drunk.

I don't often agree with Kelly Jay, but I have to go with him on this one. Atheism can be demonstrated to be a belief system. At some point it is depending on the same lack of fact that theism encounters.

I also agree with Kelly Jay that atheism arises as a counterpoint to theism; that is, it is not necessary for atheism to exist if theism also does not exist. Ideas of atheism do not propagate in a vacuum. They have not arisen on their own. Taken to extremes, it is impossible to prove that a god/God does or does not exist and if no proof can be offered then there must be a belief system at work. Or a disbelief system, as it were.

Originally posted by KellyJay
People have believed several things over time, but as our understanding
grows, less and less around us impresses us and is called supernatual.

I disagree. The majority of people use the term 'supernatural' to refer to things the specifically believe does not have a 'natural' explanation, not ones they believe the 'natural' explanation is unknown.

For example if God raised someone from the dead, to me that isn't
a natural event.
And here you demonstrate my point.
If you knew how God raised someone from the dead, would it become 'natural'?

Originally posted by Badwater
I don't often agree with Kelly Jay, but I have to go with him on this one. Atheism can be demonstrated to be a belief system. At some point it is depending on the same lack of fact that theism encounters.

I also agree with Kelly Jay that atheism arises as a counterpoint to theism; that is, it is not necessary for atheism to exist if theism also does not ...[text shortened]... f can be offered then there must be a belief system at work. Or a disbelief system, as it were.

I see it as contextual.

One might be called a theist or an atheist to the extent that such belief/non-belief plays a part in the overall context of their life, or the overall context of the culture in which they live. I might be called a tai-chi-ist because I practice tai chi daily—but that is just one aspect of the context of my life. I don’t know that it is more or less defining of who/what I am than being a theist/atheist. If you do not do tai chi, have never done tai chi, would you think of yourself as a “non-tai-chi-ist” until the context is set by the question being raised? I doubt it: the concept itself would have no real definition in/for your life until that context was established.

If someone grew up in a culture in which the notion of the existence of gods was simply absent, could such people be properly called “a-theists” except by someone from a culture in which theism was part of the cultural context? Even then, would it be a proper description of their culture, as they understand it, live it?

Suppose someone grows up strictly as a Zen Buddhist: until their cultural context expands to the point where they come across someone who believes in gods—that is, until the question is raised in their mind—can we say that that their belief system is one of a-theism defined vis-à-vis theism? It may seem so from our context, but not from theirs.

When one is not thinking at all about gods or no gods, is one an atheist—in the context of whatever one is doing at that moment? Or does that particular religious context simply not apply in that moment?

In sum, KJ’s argument, it seems to me, has some validity only given the relevant context—such as this forum (which may reflect an over-arching cultural context). Outside that context, there is no reason for me to think of myself (or to define myself) vis-à-vis theism at all. But when I enter this context, I am, as it were, stuck with the language.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I disagree. The majority of people use the term 'supernatural' to refer to things the specifically believe does not have a 'natural' explanation, not ones they believe the 'natural' explanation is unknown.

[b]For example if God raised someone from the dead, to me that isn't
a natural event.
And here you demonstrate my point.
If you knew how God raised someone from the dead, would it become 'natural'?[/b]

This is the way that I use the term. Often, I add parenthetically "extra-natural"; in this case, I neglected to do so.

Originally posted by Badwater
I don't often agree with Kelly Jay, but I have to go with him on this one. Atheism can be demonstrated to be a belief system. At some point it is depending on the same lack of fact that theism encounters.

I also agree with Kelly Jay that atheism arises as a counterpoint to theism; that is, it is not necessary for atheism to exist if theism also does not ...[text shortened]... f can be offered then there must be a belief system at work. Or a disbelief system, as it were.

And what, exactly, is atheism allegedly a belief IN? The claim is absolute rubbish. Atheism is not a belief in anything. It is the absence of belief in any gods. The Christian is the one claiming there IS a god. The burden of proof lies entirely upon his shoulders. If he cannot satisfactorily substantiate that claim, it must be doubted.

Your great blunder is to assume that theists and atheists are each making a separate knowledge claim about the existence of a god and that each needs facts to back up their claim. This view is completely and utterly false. There is only ONE claim in play, which is the Christian claim for the existence of god. The burden of proof lies entirely with him. The atheist response (as you correctly point out) is completely reactive and devoid of any content of its own. It is a simple observation that the Christian has failed to substantiate his claim satisfactorily and that it must therefore be doubted. There is no belief here. It is a lack of belief in the Christian claim. Atheism is not a rival position to Christianity, it is the neutral ground from which Christian claims should be evaluated.

The atheist does not (and cannot) 'prove' that a god does not exist, nor does he need to. He merely needs to cast sufficient doubt upon the Christian claim. Even Richard Dawkins, the L'Enfant Terrible of the atheists, does not claim to 'know' that god does not exist. Even he concedes that the question cannot be known.

Originally posted by vistesd
I see it as contextual.

One might be called a theist or an atheist to the extent that such belief/non-belief plays a part in the overall context of their life, or the overall context of the culture in which they live. I might be called a tai-chi-ist because I practice tai chi daily—but that is just one aspect of the context of my life. I don’t know ...[text shortened]... -à-vis theism at all. But when I enter this context, I am, as it were, stuck with the language.

One who has never heard of god, or who is unable to conceptualize a god, is an implicit atheist. One who has heard of god, but finds the claim unpersuasive, is an an explicit atheist. All infants are born atheists (albeit implicit atheists). Most are subsequently taught to become theists, although some will go on to become explicit atheists.

Originally posted by rwingett
One who has never heard of god, or who is unable to conceptualize a god, is an implicit atheist. One who has heard of god, but finds the claim unpersuasive, is an an explicit atheist. All infants are born atheists (albeit implicit atheists). Most are subsequently taught to become theists, although some will go on to become explicit atheists.

Thanks; I think those terms are helpful for the discussion (you’ve probably pointed them out before, but I forgot). But, if you were to ask an “implicit atheist” if that’s what they were, how could they answer until you had set the context by explaining what “theist” means? And that question, I think, goes to KJ’s claim.

Nevertheless, given that—in this context—we’re stuck with the normative language for this context, those terms are helpful.

Originally posted by rwingett
And what, exactly, is atheism allegedly a belief IN? The claim is absolute rubbish. Atheism is not a belief in anything. It is the absence of belief in any gods. The Christian is the one claiming there IS a god. The burden of proof lies entirely upon his shoulders. If he cannot satisfactorily substantiate that claim, it must be doubted.

Your great blund ...[text shortened]... laim to 'know' that god does not exist. Even he concedes that the question cannot be known.

Atheism is not a rival position to Christianity, it is the neutral ground from which Christian claims should be evaluated.

Whatever happened to agnosticism?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]Atheism is not a rival position to Christianity, it is the neutral ground from which Christian claims should be evaluated.

Whatever happened to agnosticism?[/b]

Hi, Epi. Although this was addressed to Robb, I’ll take a stab—

There are two possible agnostic positions: (1) applying to one who does not know because one has not sufficiently examined the question, and (2) applying to one who does not know because the evidence examined seems generally equipollent and therefore inconclusive.

In the second case, “weak” atheism (sometimes called “agnostic atheism” ), which has been rwingett’s position, can claim that the strong claims of the theist carry a correspondingly strong burden of proof—and that, absent such proof, the reasonable default is agnostic atheism. Such logical minds on here as Dr. Scribbles and Starrman have also argued that, even in the face of seemingly equipollent evidence, one really decides for theism or atheism in terms of how one generally thinks and behaves (lives)—and therefore that a claim of agnosticism is really self-deceptive.

In his book Buddhism Without Beliefs, Buddhist scholar Stephen Batchelor argues, contra the above, that “strong agnosticism” is a valid position. But I don’t recall his arguments; I merely mention it. Apparently, I did not find them compelling. 🙂