Chrsitianity and supernaturalism

juliod · Post by **juliod** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 8:50 pm

I am an atheist. But I think of atheism as only being a small subset of the tenets of naturalism.

I don't believe in the christian god. But I don't believe in any gods. But beyond that I don't believe in any supernatural beings, powerful or weak. And indeed I don't believe in any supernatural things at all. Not god, not TV psychics, not dowsers, not astrology.

One thing difficult to express to theists is that I consider their beliefs to be the same as belief in psychics or palmistry.

All these things have been shown to be false long long ago. It takes an act of personal will to believe in them. The problem, as I see it, is that theists view that act of will to be a virtue, not as it is, a vice.

DanZ

ENIGMA · Post by **ENIGMA** » Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:29 am

Moonchild wrote:I try really hard to accept all religions, at least in so far as they work for some individuals and brighten their lives and the lives of others around them. I will never, for the life of me, understand how denominations of Christians can totally count out other denominations of Christians for no other reason than a person disbelief in their doctrines.
Isn't it in the Bible somewhere that it is God's job to judge others? Seems a lot of Christians haven't read that far.

A natural result of following that teaching is to shut down the police, prisons, courts and any other attempt by man to judge and enforce judgement upon others. This would rather quickly lead to a breakdown of civil society.

I would honestly prefer that they continue not following that passage,
It would not too terribly bad for the Christians who think they get a good afterlife, but it would be terrible for the atheists who have to do our living and prospering here.

scorpia · Post by **scorpia** » Sat Jan 22, 2005 5:40 am

But some assumptions can be silly or lead to irrelevant, purely-academic arguments.

I.e. "Assume there are pixies under every rock..." Who cares what follows?

Some assumptions are needed when determining something that would otherwise appear illogical.

Eg. How do we see? We use our eyes, yes. And we can only see when there is a light source illuminating everything or reflecting off of things. But in between the light source/ reflecting light and our eyes we can't see anything special. Yet there must be something that allows light to travel so that we can see, but we can't see it.

I was making the point that supernaturalists (e.g. christians) do not reconsider their position in the light of new evidence. Their bronze-age myths are fixed, and they insist on believing them even when comprehensive evidence falsifies avery aspect.

I'm sorry but I'm not sure how the bronze age would suffice as biblical proof. It is not an argument I've heard of, or at least not that I remember.

No, there isn't. If there was, someone would have told us about it already.

You simply haven't heard of proof that would be enough for some. But there would be proof you would have heard of by now, although it would be some and would be argued for/ against etc, it's still there, and it would be enough for some.

Tell us some of god's natural properties then we can decide if he/she/it/they is real.

What are natural properties?

juliod · Post by **juliod** » Sat Jan 22, 2005 11:20 pm

You simply haven't heard of proof that would be enough for some. But there would be proof you would have heard of by now, although it would be some and would be argued for/ against etc, it's still there, and it would be enough for some.

Only those people with ludicrously low standards. Not just low standards, but ludicrously low ones.

I mean it when I say there is no evidence in support of supernaturalism. Don't tell me that there is evidence. Tell me what the evidence is.

What are natural properties?

You asked about what if someone claimed god was natural. I just want to know what the properties of this god would be.

DanZ

mrmufin · Post by **mrmufin** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:45 am

scorpia wrote:What are natural properties?

Mass, dimension, color, velocity, temperature, charge, spin, spatial coordinates, specific gravity, wavelength, resonant frequency, pH, etc. Impartially discernible atrributes rather than subjectively discernable attributes such as pretty or loving or tasty or splendid.

Regards,
mrmufin

RevJP · Post by **RevJP** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 10:08 am

Good answer mrmuffin. I appreciate that you participate in the discussion rather than just fling about opinions as truth. Thank you for that.

scorpia · Post by **scorpia** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 11:18 pm

Good answer mrmuffin. I appreciate that you participate in the discussion rather than just fling about opinions as truth. Thank you for that.

Y'know.......... RevJP has a point somewhere in that quote.

MrMuffin gave some examples of natural properties. But I have to admit, if I'm going to say God may be natural, it would probably be opinion based. What made Jesus supernatural? Aside from being the son of God, he could walk on water, exorcise demons, etc. Then again, at one point he tries to get one of his disciples to walk on water.

It's my opinion that this there would have been a logical reason to that ability, maybe followng some law of nature that humans aren't completely in the knowledge of, so it wouldn't be that supernatural. This however is my opinion. It may or may not be true. Jesus being God may or may not be true. But if this to be my opinion, I have my reasoning for it, be it logical, or even something emotional like trust.

As an example; It would also be my opinion that the account of Jesus life as told by the disciple's gospels were truth. They wouldn't have lied given the conditions of their deaths, and if you think tey all smoked pot and hallucinated the same thing, which is unlikely all of them (albeit few) hallucinated the exact same thing. You could say that there was only a few of them giving such accounts, and because more people gave different accounts for different Gods, it outweighs theirs. It is my opinion that quantity doesn't matter so much. And though you may say it is for;

Only those people with ludicrously low standards. Not just low standards, but ludicrously low ones.

Well, that is your opinion.

Hopefully this post wasn't that arrogant

scorpia · Post by **scorpia** » Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:55 am

Good answer mrmuffin. I appreciate that you participate in the discussion rather than just fling about opinions as truth. Thank you for that.

Y'know.......... RevJP has a point somewhere in that quote.

MrMuffin gave some examples of natural properties. But I have to admit, if I'm going to say God may be natural, it would probably be opinion based. What made Jesus supernatural? Aside from being the son of God, he could walk on water, exorcise demons, etc. Then again, at one point he tries to get one of his disciples to walk on water.

It's my opinion that this there would have been a logical reason to that ability, maybe followng some law of nature that humans aren't completely in the knowledge of, so it wouldn't be that supernatural. This however is my opinion. It may or may not be true. Jesus being God may or may not be true. But if this to be my opinion, I have my reasoning for it, be it logical, or even something emotional like trust.

As an example; It would also be my opinion that the account of Jesus life as told by the disciple's gospels were truth. They wouldn't have lied given the conditions of their deaths, and if you think they all smoked pot and hallucinated the same thing, which is unlikely all of them (albeit few) hallucinated the exact same thing. You could say that there was only a few of them giving such accounts, and because more people gave different accounts for different Gods, it outweighs theirs. It is my opinion that quantity doesn't matter so much. And though you may say it is for;

Only those people with ludicrously low standards. Not just low standards, but ludicrously low ones.

Well, that is your opinion. Not mine. I'll leave it there since I cannot speak for anyone's else's opinions

Hopefully this post wasn't that arrogant

RevJP · Post by **RevJP** » Thu Jan 27, 2005 1:40 pm

Hopefully this post wasn't that arrogant

No more so than those to which you were responding...

JamesBrown · Post by **JamesBrown** » Thu Jan 27, 2005 4:27 pm

scorpia wrote:As an example; It would also be my opinion that the account of Jesus life as told by the disciple's gospels were truth. They wouldn't have lied given the conditions of their deaths

On what are you basing this claim? We have no reliable record of any eyewitness dying for their belief. James' martyrdom is mentioned in Acts, but the details are too sparse; namely, almost no details about his death, or if he had the chance to save himself by recanting, of what it actually was he thought he was dying for. The only accounts of martyrdom are of converts, not eyewitnesses, except for Peter. But his account is only found in the Acts of Peter, a gnostic work not accepted by any Christian church as authentic, and he was killed for political meddling, not for making spiritual claims.

Stephen was not an eyewitness; Paul was not an eyewitness. Plus, all throughout history, people have been willing to die, even commit suicide, for what they believe is a good cause, common sense notwithstanding.

Besides, is it a safe assumption that the early believers were so convinced that they were more than willing to die? Look at Paul's sneaky dodges in Acts 9. Why wasn't Peter or any other apostle martyred like Stephen? Is is a coincidence that Peter denies when alone and surrounded by hostile witnesses, yet he reconverts when safe?

What's more, why is it that Paul preaches in Jerusalem, starts a riot, yet only he is arrested, and none of the other believers who were clearly there (Acts 21)? How could a persecuted church maintain its council of elders in Jerusalem for years without being arrested?

There is too much reason to doubt that the martyrdom of eye-witnesses would have been serious enough to dissuade them from carrying out their original plans.