Jamest is right!

[Xamonas Chegwé]

You can see shit for what it is, once it's out, plus, it smells...

If a Frenchman shits in the woods and there's no one there to smell it, does it make a stink?

If a Frenchman is in the woods, you don't need to know if he's had a shit to know it stinks in there.

I doubt if the Frenchman thinks it stinks. Therefore you are stating a non-scientific religious belief.

Merely a high probability of being correct based upon previous experience.

[Animavore]

If you pluck evidence from your arse but never look at it directly, is it truly observed?

I don't know, depends how much you've paid for it I guess - and no, I won't be visiting that particular dominatrix again.

I've heard of "psychic surgeons" who use sleight of hand to pull cancer (really chicken grizzle) out of patients.
Beware of dodgy dominatricies.

[Seth]

Thus I am a "non-theistic" individual because my provisional position on the nature of God is that if God exists, God is not a "supernatural" being, but would instead be an entirely natural phenomenon, which means that belief in God is not "theistic" in nature, it is naturalistic or in other words, scientific.

I suggested something like this to a supernaturalist on RatSkep recently and he accused me of trying to define the supernatural out of existence. I pointed out the paradox with the supernatural that once you have defined it and gain an understanding of it it switches side to the natural automatically. The "supernatural" can never be more than a placeholder because it doesn't define anything in a positive way. It is instead defining things by what they are not, ie; a known, natural process.

Exactly! The operative definition of "supernatural" changes as our understandings change, and therefore it is a null term that translates quite nicely into "ignorance of the nature of."

And any truly rational individual will view that of which one is ignorant as an opportunity to investigate and understand. Religionists (including Atheists) on the other hand, reject investigation of the "supernatural" because they assume, a priori that the "supernatural" does not exist.

He suggested a definition for the supernatural be, "Anything which isn't reducible to mathematics." The implicit constinuation to that definition to me seems to be, "...until it is".

Yup.

Same goes for other things like consciousness. If consciousness is some immaterial "stuff" then once detected and its relationship with brain understood then immaterialism disappears up its own arse. Immaterialists recently cried foul when I suggested they had a 'Hard Problem' too every bit as much as materialists. They seemed to think citing an immaterial cause is its own thing in no further need of explanation and they weren't answerable to questions like why does damage or separation of the material brain cause barriers to the flow of this immaterial stuff?

In the same way that cutting a copper wire stops the flow of electrons. The brain is merely a circuit component, not the immaterial information being conveyed.

Supernatural and immaterial questions are very interesting to me, but in my experience the people who fight the hardest against seeking honest answers to the questions are not atheists, but theists themselves who have no interest in seeking answers and instead want to revel in the mystery (real or percieved).

My experience is that Atheists are every bit as dogmatically narrow-minded and unwilling to step outside their prejudices and biases as any ultra-orthodox theist.

[Seth]

You can see shit for what it is, once it's out, plus, it smells...

If a Frenchman shits in the woods and there's no one there to smell it, does it make a stink?

If a Frenchman is in the woods, you don't need to know if he's had a shit to know it stinks in there.

I doubt if the Frenchman thinks it stinks. Therefore you are stating a non-scientific religious belief.

Merely a high probability of being correct based upon previous experience.

Fallacy of composition.

[Brian Peacock]

If you pluck evidence from your arse but never look at it directly, is it truly observed?

I don't know, depends how much you've paid for it I guess - and no, I won't be visiting that particular dominatrix again.

I've heard of "psychic surgeons" who use sleight of hand to pull cancer (really chicken grizzle) out of patients.
Beware of dodgy dominatricies.

Sage advice I will surely heed Ani.

I'd love ot listen to Rupert... before I die.

Oh but you can. Easily. You just have to believe in him and his magical wrists, click your heels together three times, head for the second star to the right (and straight on 'till morning), chuck a punnet of strawberries over you left should, wear a special hat (of course), and, if Rupret decides that it should happen, the music will simply ooze its way into you. Guaranteed 100%.

Just don't be a fallacy pushing fucking idiot and dis-believe, dis-regard, dis-respect, or dis-anything me, OK?

[Svartalf]

Now will you go with me to kiss Hank's ass?

[Animavore]

In the same way that cutting a copper wire stops the flow of electrons. The brain is merely a circuit component, not the immaterial information being conveyed.

This doesn't work for certain views of duality, like ones following Decartes' argument from indivisiblity. And I don't think it works with many immaterialist views where consciousness is its own thing not contingent on brain function. It might work in a material view wherein material means this currently labelled 'immaterial' stuff yet to be understood.

My experience is that Atheists are every bit as dogmatically narrow-minded and unwilling to step outside their prejudices and biases as any ultra-orthodox theist.

In my own personal experience of you this is your own preconception of atheists from which every throwaway comment must be attacked and bent to confirm to.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

You can see shit for what it is, once it's out, plus, it smells...

If a Frenchman shits in the woods and there's no one there to smell it, does it make a stink?

If a Frenchman is in the woods, you don't need to know if he's had a shit to know it stinks in there.

I doubt if the Frenchman thinks it stinks. Therefore you are stating a non-scientific religious belief.

Merely a high probability of being correct based upon previous experience.

Fallacy of composition.

No. Fallacy of stretching a faux-xenophobic joke a bit too far! Not sure there's a name for that one.

[Brian Peacock]

Now will you go with me to kiss Hank's ass?

Nice one.

[Seth]

In the same way that cutting a copper wire stops the flow of electrons. The brain is merely a circuit component, not the immaterial information being conveyed.

This doesn't work for certain views of duality, like ones following Decartes' argument from indivisiblity. And I don't think it works with many immaterialist views where consciousness is its own thing not contingent on brain function. It might work in a material view wherein material means this currently labelled 'immaterial' stuff yet to be understood.

That's a good point. Definitions are something of a conundrum when knowledge is deficient, just ask Copernicus.

My experience is that Atheists are every bit as dogmatically narrow-minded and unwilling to step outside their prejudices and biases as any ultra-orthodox theist.

In my own personal experience of you this is your own preconception of atheists from which every throwaway comment must be attacked and bent to confirm to.

It's not a preconception, it's a very carefully constructed analysis that is the result of more than 30 years of debating with Atheists, wherein the "throwaway comments" outnumber the germane and thoughtful comments by ten-thousand to one. It's hardly incorrect to conclude that Atheists, as a rule, have their own special religiously dogmatic preconceptions and biases from which all argumentation proceeds because that's the long-observed truth. Rare indeed is the atheist who is willing to cogently and rationally discuss religion, theism or anything other than hard-left liberalism.

I know precisely one, out of all the thousands and thousands of Atheists I've debated with over the years, and even he demonstrates a degree of hidebound dogmatism from time to time. Quite literally everyone else I've ever debated has, sooner rather than later, turned away from reason and logic and for the most part resorted to sarcasm, dismissal, and outright ad hom insult directed towards literally anyone who dares to challenge their religious orthodoxy.

I keep hoping someone will show up who has more intellectual horsepower and stamina, but I've not seen any evidence at all that such persons inhabit this sort of forum.

But, you get what you pay for, so I'll have to be satisfied with what's here.

[Seth]

I doubt if the Frenchman thinks it stinks. Therefore you are stating a non-scientific religious belief.

Merely a high probability of being correct based upon previous experience.

Fallacy of composition.

No. Fallacy of stretching a faux-xenophobic joke a bit too far! Not sure there's a name for that one.

Not much for deep humor, are you? Think "compost."

[hackenslash]

Not much for deep humor, are you? Think "compost."

There's nothing so humorous as you thinking you have any depth, moron.

Still here, are you? I have this hypothesis that I wish to test, namely that all the nice, intelligent people will come back when you fuck off and take your toxic stupidity with you. I'd love to test it, but you simply won't fuck off. In the interest of good science, please go away, you stupid cunt.

[pErvinalia]

Nope. I'm a non-theistic Tolerist™

So it's just a coincidence that we both don't choose to believe in God? You got to that point via evidence, and we just stumbled there somehow?

I don't choose not to believe in God. I don''t choose to believe in God. I keep an open mind and watch carefully for, and carefully evaluate, any evidence pointing either way, and I refuse to draw faulty conclusions based on personal bias or inadequate credible information.

So, in other words, you are an atheist. Welcome to the team!

No, even according to your narrow definition of "atheist" as "one who has no belief in God" I'm not an atheist, nor am I an Atheist (who holds a positive belief about the non-existence of God, which is you and just about everyone else here...and every other Atheist I've ever encountered).

You're a dishonest cunt of the highest order.

[pErvinalia]

Not much for deep humor, are you? Think "compost."

There's nothing so humorous as you thinking you have any depth, moron.

Exactly. I actually hope that Seth never actually realises how fucking stupid he is. It will be a very hard thing to bear after being such an unabashed arrogant twat for most of his forum life.

[Seth]

Not much for deep humor, are you? Think "compost."

There's nothing so humorous as you thinking you have any depth, moron.

Still here, are you? I have this hypothesis that I wish to test, namely that all the nice, intelligent people will come back when you fuck off and take your toxic stupidity with you. I'd love to test it, but you simply won't fuck off. In the interest of good science, please go away, you stupid cunt.

Er, no.