Be a good little atheist...

[amb]

True, they would give the appearance of gods, but their "powers" would be based on technology rather than supernatural gifts. So we still wouldn't have gods.

How about a time machine the size of a watch. Or the ability to become invisible to an organic eye with some contraption that fits in the palm of a hand.
These are science fiction to us in the 21st century. If someone who lives in a 50's environment saw an LCD TV today, he would certainly think it's practically magic.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

You're assuming a supernatural being wouldn't care if it's interventions in the world are being scrutinized. You don't know that. It may have a very good reason for staying on the periphery of scientific inquiry.

That is why you can only conclude prayer is not efficacious in a scientifically controlled setting. Concluding anything else is presuming to know the mind and motives of a supernatural being. It's quite possible that outside of scientific studies people who are prayed for have a 20% better chance of recovery than those that aren't.

God only heals people when the doctors leave? Right...

 

[Aepervius]

You're assuming a supernatural being wouldn't care if it's interventions in the world are being scrutinized. You don't know that. It may have a very good reason for staying on the periphery of scientific inquiry.

That is why you can only conclude prayer is not efficacious in a scientifically controlled setting. Concluding anything else is presuming to know the mind and motives of a supernatural being. It's quite possible that outside of scientific studies people who are prayed for have a 20% better chance of recovery than those that aren't.

GWIMW.

So for every objection , you make up your own GWIMW objection "god does not like being observed".

Well, you know what, gods don't exists, but a invisible dragon in my garage do and he created the universe. And he don't answer prayer *ever* because he does not like whinny people asking for stuff. And that is logically consistent. Oh, and he does not care a single bit in human. That is why the suffering, and so on, he could not care less if we die in pain. Logically consistent with the universe as we know again. And i don't need a DWIMW. He only care about other invisible dragon, they have all free will thanks to him, and they have no pain. Too bad for YOU, but my dragon is more logically consistent than any gods of any religion you can believe in on earth.

 

[qayak]

I thought we were talking about supernatural beings that could intervene in the physical world undected? That seems pretty straightforward. No need to get bogged down in God-talk.

By definition, a supernatural being is a god. But, if it makes you feel better, please define your supernatural being. You said they needed to be "sufficiently omnipotent and omniscient." What exactly does that mean.

So I ask again: where's the logical contradiction?

We'll get to that as soon as you stop dodging.

Define "proving it"? What on Earth for? If your argument for the logical inconsistency of the aforementioned supernatural being is valid and sound, I'll congratulate you and change my mind.

Define it so there is a standard to meet and no goal post movement.

So far you haven't given an argument. So I repeat: what are the logical inconsistencies of such a being and why are they logically inconsistent?

So far, you haven't provided the two pieces of information I need to show your ideas are wrong.

And you have an audience besides me now. Mr. Agenda wants to know too

You'd best get at it then.

 

[Malerin]

By definition, a supernatural being is a god.

Wait... What? Where did you get that from?

How many of you guys are going to make these category errors?

All gods are supernatural beings.
Not all supernatural beings are gods.

A ghost is a kind of supernatural being. Therefore, a ghost is God?

 

[Delvo]

God can't escape our sight that easily. If he were ordinarily in the business of answering prayers to heal the sick/wounded when there isn't a study being conducted, and withheld those miracles when there is (because there is... which is a funny way to make life & death decisions...), then patients' outcomes in those prayer studies would be worse than the outcomes among the general public. But the average outcomes within such studies have not been different from the general population-wide trends outside of the studies. So there hasn't been a difference in God's behavior between the two circumstances (inside those studies and outside them).

 

[Malerin]

By definition, a supernatural being is a god. But, if it makes you feel better, please define your supernatural being. You said they needed to be "sufficiently omnipotent and omniscient." What exactly does that mean.

I find this call for definition to be somewhat duplicitious. It often arises as a tactic to stall discussion when one's position becomes untenable.

YOU were the one who asserted that a supernatural being could be "easily detected". I presume you had a definition in mind when you made that claim. If you didn't know what "supernatural being" meant, then your claim is incoherent. If you DID know what it meant, you would not need to ask for a definition from me. Just to refresh your memory, here's the original claim:

If a supernatural being exists, they are not inside this universe and they do not interact with it. If they were, or did, it would be detectable. it would be the only place in the universe where laws don't apply. Quite easy to detect.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I find this call for definition to be somewhat duplicitious. It often arises as a tactic to stall discussion when one's position becomes untenable.

Crap. Talking about something you can't even define works well if you hold debates in the locked wards.

 

[epix]

S.E. Cupp is being absurd if this is true. Believers raise cane at atheists all the time. Atheists are bullied in school, fired from jobs, kicked out of their apartments and sometimes treated like pariahs. If we appear a bit arrogant at times well maybe its just payback on our parts.

In other words, some atheists suffer from full-blown social paranoia. Or is it because a good religion should have some martyrs? Joe Atheist was willfully fired from his job by his Protestant boss-- and then rehired! Well, it's not the same as coming back to life, like the He-has-risen case, but at least it's something.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

In other words, some atheists suffer from full-blown social paranoia. Or is it because a good religion should have some martyrs? Joe Atheist was willfully fired from his job by his Protestant boss-- and then rehired! Well, it's not the same as coming back to life, like the He-has-risen case, but at least it's something.

Sit back there and be quiet.

 

[epix]

Sit back there and be quiet.

It doesn't go like that. Here...

6726339.
Thou shall sit back there and be quiet.

Sorry for disrupting the services.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I find this call for definition to be somewhat duplicitious. It often arises as a tactic to stall discussion when one's position becomes untenable.

YOU were the one who asserted that a supernatural being could be "easily detected". I presume you had a definition in mind when you made that claim. If you didn't know what "supernatural being" meant, then your claim is incoherent. If you DID know what it meant, you would not need to ask for a definition from me. Just to refresh your memory, here's the original claim:

I'm not at all sure what Gayak's sentences 2-4 mean (since they seem to contradict his earlier definition and probably even themselves), but his first sentence clearly states that a supernatural being would not be a part of the universe and could not interact with it. With that definition, any insistence on a supernatural being that does interact with the universe directly contradicts that definition of supernatural being. So, a supernatural being interacting with the universe is a logical contradiction.

 

[Mister Agenda]

In other words, some atheists suffer from full-blown social paranoia. Or is it because a good religion should have some martyrs? Joe Atheist was willfully fired from his job by his Protestant boss-- and then rehired! Well, it's not the same as coming back to life, like the He-has-risen case, but at least it's something.

It would be paranoia if it didn't happen. Otherwise, it's just reporting. Try an experiment: put a sign on your front lawn with big letters saying 'home of a proud atheist'. Document and report back in six weeks on how well-tolerated you were. Simple experiment.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It would be paranoia if it didn't happen. Otherwise, it's just reporting. Try an experiment: put a sign on your front lawn with big letters saying 'home of a proud atheist'. Document and report back in six weeks on how well-tolerated you were. Simple experiment.

"And remember kids, don't try this at home."

 

[Resume]

"And remember kids, don't try this at home."

Not a chance.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Not a chance.

My neighbor trying to hit me because I put an Obama sign in my front yard. An "atheist" sign would be grounds for burning the house down.

 

[mikeyx]

My neighbor trying to hit me because I put an Obama sign in my front yard. An "atheist" sign would be grounds for burning the house down.

the important thing is you guys know your place.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

the important thing is you guys know your place.

Mine was standing over that moron waiting for the cops to arrive.

 

[epix]

It would be paranoia if it didn't happen. Otherwise, it's just reporting. Try an experiment: put a sign on your front lawn with big letters saying 'home of a proud atheist'. Document and report back in six weeks on how well-tolerated you were. Simple experiment.

Wait. That needs to be tested on someone elses property first


to see how it goes . . .

I wonder what would have happened if the sign had said "certainly" instead of "probably."

Let's better not provoke them theists. After all, not all religions require martyrdom as a sign of unshakable faith, so why should atheism?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

God only heals people when the doctors leave? Right...

No, you have it backward....