Insert Naturalist in the place of Atheist and I would agree. Atheists, however can believe in the supernatural. Atheist means nothing than denying or disbelieving the esistance of GOD, not everything supernatural.
God isn’t the only thing that has to be above nature. God doesn’t have to exist for other supernatural things to exist.
Why do you believe it worked? Did the reader know who you were or that you were going to have this done? Did you talk or just let them talk? I’ve known people who did this for a living and they were very good, well trained, but not supernatural. I hope I’m allowed to ask, since I violate the sacred “skeptic code” by believing in God.:rolleyes:
I agree that it’s all equally irrational (or “non-rational” maybe?). I just thought that the OP was asking if atheism logically necessitated a disbelief in all things supernatural. obviously, a belief in a deity is only one of an infinite number of supernatural beliefs one could hold. They are not necessarily interdependent.
(I wouldn’t bet on this Tarot reader being the real deal, though. Let’s see her convince JREF then I’ll take her claims seriously)
IWLN… she knows my mother… women talk a lot… so yes I have taken that into consideration. Still things no family member knows were mentioned clearly by her. Other advice that can of course be only common sense were eerily correct.
I know about cold reading and selective memory which are two things that help tarot readers seem “real”. Though I have no shrink training to help distinguish if I am sending out “signals” she might use.
I feel I have the obligation to give this the benefit of the doubt and not just dismiss it outright... like theists might have moments of doubt... I suppose atheists have their lack of "faith" tested as well. Rather than just dismiss it... I must entertain the possibility that this woman is legitimate to be fair.
Naturally I might just be getting old and soft... still it won't buckle my existence as much as I suppose a theist giving up on the belief in god.I believe in reincarnation, but I do not consider that to be “super natural”. To me, it’s part of the cycle of life and death. All very natural.
What I define as natural means everything that is part of this world, this life, this reality, if you want. Everything that we can see, perceive and explain, but also things that we can’t explain. if we can’t explain something with the knowledge that we have, it is because we can’t grasp the concepts yet that can explain it.
It doesn’t mean that those things are somehow supernatural, meaning not part of our existence, not of our nature.
but ofcourse, that’s just MHO
Well, one might just define an Atheist as someone who doesn’t believe in God, or gods.
…it’d be possible for them, I suppose, to believe in a universe that doesn’t have deities in it, but that does still have magic in it.
It’s as nonsensical and improbable to this Atheist as a universe with gods in it…but hey, that’s the beauty of supernatural beliefs; they don’t HAVE to make any sense.
Believing in something like this isn’t a commitment. You just do if you can and don’t if you can’t. I think there are more things completely beyond our understanding, than what we presently understand. To me, that’s like more presents to unwrap. Life is good.
On the other hand, karma can be explained through a sort of extrapolated version of Newton’s Third Law – “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.”
But that’s neither here nor there for this discussion, I think.
I look at this from a slightly different standpoint. A common argument here (or at least a challenge to an argument) is that if someone believes in God, he must believe in everything. What confuses the hell out of me (pun intended) is when a staunch Christian spends a half an hour talking about the truth of his religion and then turns around and reads his horoscope.
Instead of atheism and the supernatural being mutually exclusive (which for me is true enough), shouldn’t theism and all other non-sanctioned supernaturalism be mutually exclusive?
Well, if Humble Opinions counted for anything, God would be ‘natural’ too. Fortunately opinion is just so.
There is a huge amount of circumstantial evidence showing life continues after death in print these days. NDEs, OBEs, ESP, etc.
I believe this evidence will turn into proof over the next few years.
What I don’t understand is why we must fight about it? Shouldn’t we desire to know the truth?
Words are only symbols and can not fully describe our thoughts and feelings, much discussion is necessary, but respect for others’ beliefs should be mandatory.
I think it matters little whether you believe in God or not. This will not change truth. What matters is how you treat your fellow man. What you do to make this world a better place to live is what counts.
Search for truth, never take on the beliefs of others unless you have experienced them. Your experience should tell you what to believe, nothing else.
Love
What do you mean “might define as such” Atheist only has ONE meaning, pick up a dictionary. Here, try this one:
Atheist is only one who denies the existence of God. That is it. Naturalist is one that promotes naturalism, and naturalism is defined as such:
If you define Atheist as a naturalist AND an Atheist, you will be just be wrong.
Oops, here is the link
Rashak Mani stirs us with:
In my scan down this thread, I was focusing on a subject matter, or object of discussion, that would grab my attention. The problem I had was not that there were no exciting and interesting posts, but that there were too many, and that too many of those differed from the rest of the subject matter in only very subtle ways.
I caught myself reading the thread as if I was examining a schizophrenic: one identifiably unique person sking down a steep mental slope using only one ski, with a high pitched scream echoing aling the path:
Roses are red, violets are blue,
I’m schizophrenic and so am I.
We see the bifurcation mark outlining believers and non-believers, but this arbitrary classification is not sufficient to classify separate physical persons. I observed their intensity levels varying like a sine wave that exposed the fragile differences between debating posts: a measure of emotional content. Higher volumes sprinkled liberally with sincerity implied higher resolution of truth and accuracy.
I wanted to ask each a simple question I knew the answer to before I asked.:something like "how is it that you can be so positive and sure about the factual assertions you make?. Your science and belief are merely two manifestations of a one sided coin.
IWLN for instance, rolled a huge statement from the inner workings of her mind, without a slightest observable hesitation. The assertion was in the context of evolution, that the scientific community was overwhelming in agreement in the claim of the truth of evolution as being essentially classified as scientific fact. This is the claim of the biological scientific industry. However, there is a major flaw in the statement.
I suspect that IWLN is as easy with agreeing with the scientific community as she is with her own spiritual orientation relating to the ‘supernatural and spirit’ which is an intelligent and carefully reflected orientation. This belief, I sadly observed makes me conclude that IWLN needs some serious "help”, as the term is generally understood. Here is why.
Regarding the general topic of “scientific proof’ there are oceans of statements where the support of evolution is nothing more, or less, than that uttered by IWLN. I came upon a brief writing in an essay included in a collection where ‘scientists look at creation’ists’…There were a few pages in the introduction that centered on just that question. The biologist ended that phase by asserting that since 1860 when 'Origin of the Species ’ was published and for 60 years after, the scientific community was gradually joining in a circle and that by 1930 the issue was no longer in doubt and now, “we do not scrutinize the matter any further we go on to bigger and better things” [paraphrasing here somewhat].
No scientist did anything other than say, "evolution is where it’s at.” No observed proof offered. There was the familiar litany of the superiority of the ‘rational system of science’ that increased its power of advantage over the creationist/religious body that is seen in the repeatability factor of the scientific method, where the creationists were limited in the use of language by the unscrutinizability of a pure “belief” system.
The religious/believers have surrendered a huge chunk of their mind to the acceptance of scientific domination in the ever-constant debate. Here is the problem manifest as clear as I am able to define it. The modern fracture line can be traced to Origin of the Species’ and while I would only force my worst enemy to read the whole thing as an object of scientific thought, I will temper my own biases by indicating that a reading of the introduction to Origins is sufficient. Darwin titled the introduction as “A Historical Sketch”, the theme of which is Darwin quoting a dozen or so of the leading “naturalists” of the time as agreeing with the theses of the book which is, natural selection. Huxley was the last naturalist cited, who concluded, that from [paraphrasing here] “all we know”, it is inescapable to draw any other conclusion. even though the thesis is unproved and improvable. " A remjarkable confession of the reality that truth is maintained by the operation of political dynamics.
This improvability problem is not limited to the field of biology. Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate Physicist writing in his three volume textbook of introductory physics says about quantum mechanical theory that it is a ” deep mystery" and that “even the experts don’t know what is going on”. He does not say this once or twice or even 20 times and I gave up after 100. This attitude is reflected throughout the quantum theory industry. After a spell I began to “believe” he didn’t know what in the hell he was talking about. Do the quantum theorists give up? Feynman: “we have given up”. Given up what? Being able to know and understand the nature of the universe.
Interestingly enough the creationist religious body has not surrenderd to that, except in the act of surrendering to the scientific bias.
Mother Natures skirts are firmly and inexorable anchored around her trim ankles (speculating on “trim” of course), because we are forbidden by the dictates of physical law, of even peeking.
They do not teach evolution in medical schools, yet make a survey of the M.D.s and the echoes of robotic programming become manifestly clear. One has to be able to maintain the external appearance of strong jawed, pursed lipped, steely eyed and furrow browed sincerity, which is one of the reasons I never went tlo medical school, the other reason being I predicted that I wouldn't have enough patience.
Darwin, to me, represents a unique mark in the “progress” of scientific thought, where 100 years before scientists and theologians wore the same hat. They had begun diverging as a class, and I suppose the strength of their individual belief marked the identifying half of the crazy clown were they ended.
A very dear friend of mine, though somewhat of a pest , was fond of throwing out little witty aphorisms at just the right dramatic moment, such as,.
“The enemies of truth. Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.’’
This is Fred (Nietzsche) in a ‘nut’ shell., which is where he ended up: in a Swiss insane asylum.
In the thread we find
who began this discussion with the query
I wonder, would any of us have selected out individual belief system without the intervention of our childhood guardians? Is what we have so far a reflection of “free will”?
Rashak Mani has the final say with his mostly reassuring promise (only slightly wavering) that
Schizophrenia is not Multiple personalities.
I believe your scan down this thread may have taken a detour to another thread. In fear of again kicking your cane out from under you, but nevertheless willing to do so, Kid Yuma, you blew it. Use the quote icon that is at the end of each individual post and then you can respond to each point you want to and get rid of the rest. I am not going to address the evolution issue you brought up since it’s not appropriate to this thread. Try this cite -
EVOLUTION - and maybe it will be more clear to you. If not, ask an atheist, my thought processes are apparently in question, but I’m good.
Isn’t simply a matter of not being able to understand the scientific priciples behind such phenomena? I don’t understand why the scientific community is so backwards thinking when it comes to unproven ideas. Instead of saying “It doesn’t exist.” We ought to say “It may or may not exist, but we have no concrete proof that it does exist”. Just my two cents.
Surely you don’t expect anyone here to believe this as well, do you? Have her send me her stock picks for next week, and we’ll put it to the test.
That’s what we do say. We might say “we don’t believe it exists” or “there isn’t sufficient reason to believe it exists” which isn’t the same thing as saying “It doesn’t exist”
Apos, don’t you think that there is a world of difference in the phrasing there? Saying as you put it, “there isn’t sufficient reason to believe it exists”; is already placing a negation on the possiblity of something’s reality. In fact such an attitude I feel leads to the general acceptance, lack of serious research in and general dismissal of, the mysterious or supernatural in regards to scientists.
(For the sake of the example I’m not going to provide cites for this. This is merely to illustrate the concept)
Let’s take Bigfoot for example. Now the vast majority of scientists hold the opinion of “there isn’t sufficient reason to believe it exists”. Yet there are many people who claim to have seen it, and fringe reseachers have produced dung and hair samples that have returned from testing as an unknown animal probably primate. Due to the negative attitude, all serious research is laughed at or dismissed. While science would like a body, it’s going to be hard to get one unless a real ivestigation with a primatologist etc is involved.
The attitude ought to be more open minded
hehe... I understand your position. Since you, like I, will only beleive in what you can see and what you can "test". Though stock are hardly something "spiritual".
Her legitimacy though isn't in debate, it was just a spark in my personal life that set the motion of doubt... The issue is if one can be consistent with Atheism whilst beleiving in magic, witches and spirits ? Funny enough it seems to be possible... after all no proof of god is provided if these things do exist.
The curious part was that I had never thought about the question itself... I suppose I might be going from Atheism & Total Skeptic to Atheism & Partial Skeptic. I might just catch a slip from her and wake up too...