Atheist/Anti-theist/Agnostic Troper Group

I'm honestly not sure if anything can be supernatural. If we came across a god, then we would just have to expand the definition of "natural". Same thing with "natural" laws.

edited 19th Sep '14 6:24:32 PM by Robotnik

the wife of carl sagan explain this better, about the sheer ego you would have to claim something is above nature of the very universe

also as many tropes dealing with magic can atest, if the supernatural exist, it will be just...well...natural, just another law of the universe

Can you rephrase that, please? I have trouble parsing what you write.

Science deals with the observable. If we ever get concrete proof that a deity exists, that would make it pretty fucking observable.

People say that gods are outside the universe as if that makes any sense. It doesn't. They drag it with them. Nothing can be outside of the Universe because if you exist you're inside of it by definition.

Ok, "The universe" can be defined as being the sum total of all that exists. So, being part of it, if you try to go outside of it you instead create a you-shaped protrusion on it.

You can't even "try to go outside it" because there is no physical boundary to cross. And also by that definition, the universe has no outside. You can't exist and yet be outside of the set of things that exist.

Exactly.

@desdendelle: It does, which is why they seem eager to push deities outside that to avoid refutation.

@Robotnik, unknowing: The idea is simple-a god that creates the natural laws would not itself be subject to them. Theoretically, a supernatural event (one that does not conform to natural laws) would be eminently observable and even testable (say a person teleporting in a way that is not possible according to physics). Now, it is true that distinguishing an unknown natural law and some supernatural force would be very difficult. What if, say, levitation is repeatedly, scientifically observed without any discernable natural cause found? Is it impossible to have natural laws, but also something above them (say as their creator)? That doesn't mean this is the case, of course, but it doesn't seem logically incoherent either.

edited 21st Sep '14 8:24:41 AM by Fireblood

If a deity isn't observable it goes straight into the philosophical agnostic realm because you can't damn prove its existence by the means most people use.

Natural laws are descriptive. It would be impossible for a "miraculous" event not to conform to natural laws…once those natural laws were revised, of course. By the same token, once a person teleported in such a way, it would be possible according to physics; we would just have to rethink what we know.

"The thing about natural laws is they're really more like guidelines if you know what you're doing."

let me put it this way, if something as magic,gods exist, is not supernatural, its just somone cheating his way in nature

@desdendelle: Agreed.

@Robotnik: Perhaps Richard Carrier's take will make more sense. http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2007/01/defining-supernatural.html Of course could well be right, with the concept itself being failed.

@Elfive: You're right. Changing guidelines as well.

@unknowing: What's the difference? And if you made the rules (such as a creator deity) but aren't subject to them, is it really "cheating"?

Attempting to keep my religious ramblings out of the other fora:

In my writing, my lead male is an agnostic like myself, but my lead female is a conservative and intrusive atheist while her best friend is a rational and tolerant Christian.

I like those kinds of religious people. The ones who are soft-spoken about what they believe in and willing to see reason. I never hear about too many of them though..

You generally find that you tend not to notice the non-vocal theists and atheists because, well, they never talk about it.

It's why both sides are always all "oh, you people are obnoxious". Because you only ever see the assholes. The sane majority fly under the radar.

I also noticed that when a member of the sane majority is pushed into such a debate like that, they tend to use the extremist views because they're somewhat easier to justify to a fanatic (happened to me a lot, unfortunately).

Has anyone here ever read anything by Robert M. Price? I read "The Reason-Driven Life" recently, and I'd recommend picking up a copy; it's partly a direct rebuttal to Rick Warren's "The Purpose-Driven Life", but it functions perfectly well as a book on its own.

I've never heard of either book; can you give us a blurb about both?

"The Purpose-Driven Life" is, as I understand it, a Glurge-filled Christian self-help book written by pastor Rick Warren (who spoke at Obama's inauguration way back in '09).

"The Reason-Driven Life" is in part a rebuttal to it specifically, and was written by Robert M. Price, a New Testament scholar who I might describe as a "Christian atheist".

He's actually described himself as that.

That sounds a bit oxymoronic, unless the Christian part is cultural or something.

Sort of. It's quite possible to enjoy religious ceremony and fellowship (to have a "religious experience", so to speak) without actually believing in anything supernatural.

@desdendelle: Yes, he specifically identifies himself as a "cultural Christian" (so does Richard Dawkins, surprisingly). I guess that's a less common identification than, say, cultural Judaism.

I lied to my local Jehovah Witnesses about my hardships so I could get some money to survive a rough patch in my life, mostly so I could use it to buy gas and drive around. They don't put you on some contract or anything to pay them back, they just believe that you'll pay them back when you get the chance and donate to their chapel place.

A couple weeks later, I earned enough money to pay them back, but I didn't before I moved away. I feel, guilty about this. I have no fear of sin or damnation, and they won't come after me saying I need to pay my debts, but the fact that they were willing to front me 200.00 even though every other establish requires my identity before even letting me borrow a pen, makes me feel like I should.

One side, I made 200.00, on the other, somebody helped me, and with the drug addicts constantly abusing this help, it might not be available again.