A****** is a bad word?

[(Q)]

Right now, a mind downloaded into a computer can be categorised as supernatural.

No, the supernatural is not of nature, while a mind and a computer ARE of nature.

Any more red herrings, sam?

 

[S.A.M.]

No, the supernatural is not of nature, while a mind and a computer ARE of nature.

Any more red herrings, sam?

Who says the supernatural is not of nature?

What do you define as nature btw?

 

[superluminal]

Right now, a mind downloaded into a computer can be categorised as supernatural.

What? If that technology existed why would it be "supernatural"?

Pretty much applies to any belief.

Ok. Again.... belief:

any cognitive content held as true

Belief is the psychological state in which an individual is convinced of the truth of a proposition.

or believes means that the person involved actually supposed the fact in question to be true.

Agreement with a given world view. Eg Belief in the existence of God. (JA)

This means that an individual is convinced of the truth of a statement or allegation.

Religious faith

An unproven assertion based on one or more fundamental assumptions. The assertion may be unprovable.

An attitude of acceptance or assent toward a proposition without the full intellectual knowledge required guaranteeing its truth.

None of which apply to atheism. Which is a lack of belief. We make no positive assertion that god(s) do not exist. We do not BELIEVE in god(s). Get it? DO NOT believe. The opposite of believe. To NOT believe. Non believers. Atheists. Without gods. No BELIEF.

Can the density of certain posters be measured in terms of neutron star matter? I think so.

 

[superluminal]

Who says the supernatural is not of nature?

What do you define as nature btw?

Red herrings. Let's all spin off into some more semantic dancing.

 

[superluminal]

Here. Let's play who's got the better definition game:

not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material;

The supernatural (Latin: super- "above" + nature) refers to entities, forces or phenomena which are not subject to natural laws, and therefore beyond verifiable measurement. ...

of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena;

 

[(Q)]

Who says the supernatural is not of nature?

What do you define as nature btw?

Well, there goes another derailed thread. Thanks again, sam, keep up the good work. :thumbsup:

 

[S.A.M.]

Thanks for your (non) input to the discussion. Much obliged.

 

[S.A.M.]

Here. Let's play who's got the better definition game:

Unexplainable by natural law or phenomenon.

Sorta like gravity?

 

[(Q)]

Thanks for your (non) input to the discussion. Much obliged.

And the fact that you derailed your own thread with silly questions is somehow input? Pot. Kettle. Noir.

 

[S.A.M.]

I was discussing unbelief with Cris. I have no idea what you are discussing.

 

[(Q)]

I was discussing unbelief with Cris. I have no idea what you are discussing.

No sam, you were derailing the thread with silly questions.

 

[superluminal]

Unexplainable by natural law or phenomenon.

Sorta like gravity?

Ummm... no. Do you not experience gravity sam? Is it's behavior not explaned in exquisite precision by general relativity?

Are you asking for the ultimate "what is it"? sam? If that's the case, then you can play semantics to put anything you wish in the realm of the "supernatural".

But what is an atom, really??? Don't know. Must be supernatural.

Wrong. It exists and has a natural, explainable, predictable behavior.

 

[S.A.M.]

Getting back to the discussion, what is the correct term for one who does not believe in God?

Since a****** is a bad word?

 

[superluminal]

I was discussing unbelief with Cris. I have no idea what you are discussing.

Good. So, atheists are non believers. Super simple. Next?

 

[S.A.M.]

Good. So, atheists are non believers. Super simple. Next?

Please see previous posts in this thread.

According to some atheists, referring to a****** as **believers is a derogatory term, equivalent to referring to dark skinned people as niggers.

 

[superluminal]

Getting back to the discussion, what is the correct term for one who does not believe in God?

Since a****** is a bad word?

Non believer. Here's the group I used to be associated with:

http://www.atheistalliance.org/pan/1/

 

[superluminal]

Please see previous posts in this thread.

According to some atheists, referring to a****** as **believers is a derogatory term, equivalent to referring to dark skinned people as niggers.

WTF?

 

[(Q)]

Getting back to the discussion, what is the correct term for one who does not believe in God?

Since a****** is a bad word?

What is the correct term for one who does not believe in sam?

Since ASAM is a bad word?

 

[superluminal]

Please see previous posts in this thread.

According to some atheists...

So what? According to most atheists, atheist, non believer, free thinker, are all just fine.

I'm sure some atheists think that calimari tastes good too. Idiots.

 

[greenberg]

How about something that doesn't fit the usual "definition" of G or religion/mysticism?
i.e. something beyond any conception -even of something all-powerful or everywhere, or any concept whatsoever -utterly beyond any ideas?
Is there no such thing because we're unable to conceive of it, or invoke any kind of concepts about it than the above? Why is that the case?
(think about current cosmological notions and quantum chaos, e.g.)

I suppose such could be possible. But then one would have to refrain from discussion altogether.

Hmm. I feel I should pursue this a bit.
Why do you suppose it's possible, or could be?

Simply put, because we are able to conceive that there might be something outside of the system. Of course, while being within the system, we don't know what it would be like to be outside of it. But if we can conceive of the system, then there's room for the speculation that there might be something outside of it. As long as we are within the system, we can, at best, come up with pointers or approximations to what might be outside of the system; and those pointers or approximations will necessarily reflect how we think of the system we're in.

Also, why would it mean refraining from discussion?

Because one couldn't meaningfully speak of that which is outside of the system, one could only point at it, speculate about it. And such pointing and speculating doesn't make for very persuasive much less for or adequate communication.

If you were "aware" of something that was "beyond conceiving", what sort of "meaning" could it possibly have?

I suppose one could know that only once one would be aware of it.

Why would being aware of it (if that were possible, or if it wasn't a logical paradox), mean disconnection from opinion or thinking?

Because opinion, thinking are part of this system we are currently in.

Why can't it be the case, say, that it exists (like a quantum state with an undefined value, or "infinite" uncertainty), but you can think as well as "experience" it (but not via an intellectual apprehension)?

That might be an approximation of what is called "nirvana" in Buddhism.