CX

Better, but still meaningless. I submit that the term "supernatural" is bandied about with no clear understanding of what it means, if anything. I know I'm seeming didactic hear, but were are having a logical debate after all and since you and I both know that I'm unlikely to change your mind and you are unlikely to change the only real reason we are here is for entertaining mental gymnastics. Though perhaps I presume to much about you.

Jobar

Polycarp, you accuse tfsaint unjustly. I, in fact, was the first one to point out in this thread that the JudeoChristian/Islamic definition(s) for the word "God" were unclear and indefinite. "Igtheism", remember.

We have gone beyond the original topic question here, I think. Just for the record, are there any of the theists involved who disagree that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? (We know very well that you think that the question of the existence of God is EITHER not an extraordinary claim, OR that the supposed atheistic claim of God's nonexistence is equally extraordinary. A claim which 'weak' atheism does not make, IMO.)

Would everyone here agree that we are now discussing just what IS extraordinary, in the way of claims, or evidence? And that if we could agree on this (about the time pigs reach escape velocity) we would agree that the answer to the topic question is "yes"?

Photocrat

Which is the line between the sane & irrational atheists. My only problem is that sometimes, all too many of them blithely assert things which can only be rational using premises which belong on the wrong side of that line & never realize it...

Why do you think that there's a misconception that there are many more fundamentalist atheists out there than there really are? Ironically, "common" sense has long been in short supply...

Mike Rosoft

>What some Christians really say is that the Christian claims
>are not extraordinary. They say that, while the claim that Jones
>walked out of his own tomb would be extraordinary, the claim
>that Jesus walked out of His own tomb is not extraordinary.

I really wonder what arguments they would use for such an assertion.


Mike Rosoft

CX

"Fundamentalist Atheists" I like that. It fits well with my own word "Skeptivangelists". Anyway the reason is simple. Since the time of the Greeks the word atheist has been used as a derogatory epithet. In common usage the word means "someone who says god does not exist". That this is not etymologically correct doesn't matter to the average Joe Sixpack. I think most theists don't really believe that an atheist doesn't believe in god, but that atheists are either angry at god or immoral individuals that don't want to follow gods laws. Its mostly ignorance and prejudice. Plus a lot of "new" atheists, myself included years ago, go around evangelising for atheism and being very hostile toward religion and people of faith. Throw in the absurd equivocation of "strong" versus "weak" atheism and people get even more confused. In general in the U.S it's pretty easy to get your point across by saying you don't believe Jesus was the son of god. That's all beleivers in this country really care about. Once they know that they can pigenhole you comfortably enough to know they don't want their kids playing with your kids. (Though not all believers are like this. I have some very dear friends who are quite devout evangelical Xians. They know who I am and my son is still best friends with their son).

jlowder

I have revised the Call for Papers in order to clarify the topic of the requested paper. Please see the link above for clarification. Also, I highly recommend that prospective authors contact me privately BEFORE writing a paper so that we can avoid multiple submissions.

Regards,

Jeffery Jay Lowder

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by CowboyX: Better, but still meaningless. I submit that the term "supernatural" is bandied about with no clear understanding of what it means, if anything. I know I'm seeming didactic hear, but were are having a logical debate after all and since you and I both know that I'm unlikely to change your mind and you are unlikely to change the only real reason we are here is for entertaining mental gymnastics. Though perhaps I presume to much about you.

Let's keep progressing here... Of course neither of us will change the other's mind as to the question of god's existence, but I want to point out that your view entails more claims than you have admitted thus far.

What if "god" were to be defined as "a being of supernatural power capable of performing acts in clear violation of natural laws"? Would this definition be narrow enough for you to make a claim as to its truth value?

I'd love to see replies from other skeptics on this question, too. Do you believe the universe to be void of all gods meeting the above criteria given in the preceding paragraph?

Peace,

Polycarp

Family Man

Actually, I think that is a pretty good definition. However, you'd have to show that both such a being exists and that he has those powers. And it would have to be a undeniably clear demonstration -- something on the order of limbs regrowing, not temporary cures of arthritis.

So, yes, I think the universe is devoid of gods, for I certainly don't see clear violations of natural laws, much less a being that causes them.

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by Jobar: We have gone beyond the original topic question here, I think. Just for the record, are there any of the theists involved who disagree that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? (We know very well that you think that the question of the existence of God is EITHER not an extraordinary claim, OR that the supposed atheistic claim of God's nonexistence is equally extraordinary. A claim which 'weak' atheism does not make, IMO.) Would everyone here agree that we are now discussing just what IS extraordinary, in the way of claims, or evidence? And that if we could agree on this (about the time pigs reach escape velocity) we would agree that the answer to the topic question is "yes"?

I don't think we're that far afield from the original topic. Since I've been called on the carpet for failing to adequately define "god", perhaps the opposition should be chastised for the lack of a clear definition of "extraordinary claim".

I agree with your "weak" atheism statement, and I think Cowboy X inaccurately portrays many of the skeptics here at the SecWeb by failing to distinguish between different branches of free-thinkers. I'd love to hear your reply to my question in the post right above this one.

As far as extraordinary claims are concerned, can I say there is such a thing as a "weak" theist? In other words, how "extraordinary" of a claim is it to say I believe it to be more likely that some type of god exists than that no god exists? Based on all of the available evidence (scientific, philosophical, experiential, etc.), to say the likelihood leans one way or another would not seem to be an extraordinary claim. I certainly can understand why this would seem shocking to a skeptic. Maybe somebody can come up with a good definition of what qualifies as "extraordinary".

The burden of proof for any claim lies with the person making the claim. This does not imply proof to a degree of certitude, but does involve a demonstration of the preponderance of evidence. Let's take Santa Claus as an example, since he seems to be a favorite analogy used by free-thinkers as a comparison to god. What is the evidence for and against his existence? Once we start comparing Santa Claus and god, it quickly becomes apparent that it is a very poor analogy. If anyone would like to believe otherwise, please demonstrate why you do. Once you start thinking about why it's extraordinary to say Santa Claus exists, you should see how the "god" issue is different.

Peace,

Polycarp

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by DennisM: Actually, I think that is a pretty good definition. However, you'd have to show that both such a being exists and that he has those powers. And it would have to be a undeniably clear demonstration -- something on the order of limbs regrowing, not temporary cures of arthritis. So, yes, I think the universe is devoid of gods, for I certainly don't see clear violations of natural laws, much less a being that causes them.

Thanks, Dennis. Your answer is what I would expect to hear from the majority of others. I'd like to pursue this, but I'll wait for a few others to reply before addressing what you've said.

Peace,

Polycarp