Quote:

[quote]    “Atheism is the acceptance that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural.”    Not only does it explain Atheism definitively, it leaves the theist with nowhere to hide.    Who knows, a good argument against the above could end up with the AFA having a new definition.  Why not give it a go? source

I'd love to give it a go David… thanks.

I completely disagree of course. At its most fundamental Atheism is the antonym of Theism. So where Theism is 'with belief', Atheism is 'without belief'. Linking Atheism with Science, which is notorious for claiming… We hold this theory to be persuasive unless something better, born of peer reviewed study, comes along., weakens the meaning of Atheism as something akin to, but not exactly like, Agnosticism. I don't subscribe to weak Atheism… Theism for me just doesn't make sense and no amount of persuasive science… which may be arguing a more evidence based, theistic theory can change that. My brand of Atheism, then, is not premised on knowledge of the day. The definition at question, however, is definitely trapped within contemporary known knowns.

Ignoring the matter of gods, which could be described as being of the natural world, and focusing exclusively now on the supernatural which is also mentioned, the definition is fatally flawed due to the absurdity of its assumption, being that; the sciences which study the natural world, exclusively, have something evidence based to say about the supernatural world. And of course, the sciences have nothing to say about the supernatural. The sciences care naught for the supernatural. The supernatural is beyond the scope of natural sciences. No surprises then that the natural sciences have no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence to support the supernatural… they are not seeking it!

On the matter of god/s, the definition of atheism as presented by this forum beg the questions… What is the nature of god/s for which science can find no credible scientific and factually reliable, evidence based support? And who on Earth is doing the research? Why has Atheism become entangled with defining the essence of god? And if Atheism is working off known definitions, which are many and varied, why must they in the first place acknowledge such definitions in order to question the existence of such god/s? Atheism does not believe so there is no room for 'iff' statements. (iff = if and only if)


I am an Atheist. I do not believe in any theistic system because they do not make sense... to me. My position requires no credible scientific and factually reliable evidence based support. My position makes no claims about god/s and their nature nor the methodology required of natural sciences to disprove the supernatural. My position does not seek to question theism, nor denigrate it. Let theists believe what they want and let me choose to not believe. :cool: [/quote]

Thought it might be interesting to start the same discussion here as well.

Sappho wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 2:00am:

On the matter of god/s, the definition of atheism as presented by this forum beg the questions… What is the nature of god/s for which science can find no credible scientific and factually reliable, evidence based support? And who on Earth is doing the research? Why has Atheism become entangled with defining the essence of god? And if Atheism is working off known definitions, which are many and varied, why must they in the first place acknowledge such definitions in order to question the existence of such god/s? Atheism does not believe so there is no room for 'iff' statements. (iff = if and only if) I am an Atheist. I do not believe in any theistic system because they do not make sense... to me. My position requires no credible scientific and factually reliable evidence based support. My position makes no claims about god/s and their nature nor the methodology required of natural sciences to disprove the supernatural. My position does not seek to question theism, nor denigrate it. Let theists believe what they want and let me choose to not believe. :cool:

Quote:

Thought it might be interesting to start the same discussion here as well.

Well, I asked the question before, but what are the minimum criteria for entrance into the Theist club?  It's an important question, because we're not arguing the Christian or the Judaic position versus the Atheist position, we are arguing the Theist position.

I would argue that a person who believes in a God as a mass psycho-social phenomenon, in which 'things get done' as a result of the collective belief (god moves in mysterious ways similar to stockmarket forces) is a theist.  

There is no need for anything supernatural in a theist belief system. In fact, it comes close to one or two established religions. The Jains, for example take a 'collective minds' type of position that doesn't posit any deity that is external to the human population.  In Eastern religions, the position that god is internal (intrinsic within each human being and a property of their humanity) is commonplace.

Now if that's the minimum entry qualification to the theist club, what significance does that have for the counter position? (atheism)

muso wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 7:04am:

In Eastern religions, the position that god is internal (intrinsic within each human being and a property of their humanity) is commonplace.

An immanent 'god' (as opposed to a transcendent one) does not necessarily preclude the proposition that this 'god' is supernatural.

muso wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 7:04am:

In Eastern religions, the position that god is internal (intrinsic within each human being and a property of their humanity) is commonplace. Now if that's the minimum entry qualification to the theist club, what significance does that have for the counter position? (atheism)

How about... Atheism does not believe in divine self and/or collective human consciousness? It doesn't make sense because it denies our evolutionary reality as territorial beings by placing too much emphasis on humans as nurturing beings.

Eastern beliefs place emphasis on striving for perfection/ nirvana/ nothingness. Such concepts are of the mind alone and not reflected in reality.  

The definition does not distinguish atheism and agnosticism in any way (and neither does the counter definition given in response). It would even include many religious people. Plenty of religious people happily acknowledge the lack of scientific evidence. Many, though probably not as many, would acknowledge the same for 'factually reliable' evidence, whatever that means.

You might as well have tried to define atheism by what they eat for breakfast.

I think the ten commandments of atheism are far more appropriate:


freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 3:42pm:

Grey Quote: If it's any consolation Free, I was asked to leave Grin , I kept chiding them for being too rough on newbies with some faith. Frankly their belligerance amazed me. I think they [atheist forum australia] may have been the original inspiration for my atheism is a religion argument. They were more dogmatic than any religious forum I have seen, even more so than the fishing forums. I have decided to dedicate my 'ten commandments of atheism' to their honour. I only have 3 so far, but I'm sure a few more will come up. The 10 commandments of atheism: 1) Thou shalt stick to the message. Atheism is disbelief. This makes perfect sense and needs no clarification. Beware linguistic trickery and questions asked with forked tongue. 2) Thou shalt have no theology but atheology. Beware false prophets who proclaim that God does not exist, enemies who proclaim that God does exist, and agnostics who proclaim neither. Disproclaim them all! 3) Dismember them too, for they ask annoying questions. Post their personal information, but close your forum from public view, for they are all-seeing. 4) ?

Sappho wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 7:57am:

Eastern beliefs place emphasis on striving for perfection/ nirvana/ nothingness. Such concepts are of the mind alone and not reflected in reality.

And they almost universally posit a duality of mind and body, such that while the body is transient and contingent, there is 'something immortal and immanent in mind' (either mind itself or a divine essence which causes mind) which (in most systems) transmigrates - at least and until some 'point of perfection' has been reached or achieved, whereupon this disembodied 'mind' or 'essence' 'exists' in a state of 'neither being nor non-being'.

The deification of mind in all but name.

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 7:53am:

muso wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 7:04am:  In Eastern religions, the position that god is internal (intrinsic within each human being and a property of their humanity) is commonplace. An immanent 'god' (as opposed to a transcendent one) does not necessarily preclude the proposition that this 'god' is supernatural.

..whatever that means. The ghost in the machine.

Sappho wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 7:57am:

How about... Atheism does not believe in divine self and/or collective human consciousness? It doesn't make sense because it denies our evolutionary reality as territorial beings by placing too much emphasis on humans as nurturing beings. Eastern beliefs place emphasis on striving for perfection/ nirvana/ nothingness. Such concepts are of the mind alone and not reflected in reality.

Well, we do have a sort of collective consciousness in the form of religion, the financial markets etc.  

If you think of human beings as analogous to neurons for a moment, those "neurons" communicate via a network via various very effective means of communication such as verbal, written and even body language. The collective consciousness I'm talking about is not mystical. It's like a planet-wide neural network.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 8:24am:

The definition does not distinguish atheism and agnosticism in any way

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutally exclusive. We don't have to distinguish them. While I don't see the concepts as useful, I see atheism, theism and agnosticism as the three corners of a triangle.  

Even trying to define atheism is a stretch, when the theism that it is being applied against is so loose as to include belief in collective thinking that drives forces like the stockmarket.

Atheism is a responsive attitude that people take to position themselves, and their understanding of the world, and their personal beliefs defined by that understanding.

Because I can conceive of god propositions that are plausible, many people of religious persuasion will then seek to categorise me as Agnostic, while I very strongly identify as Atheist, and I do so because the Theistic beliefs that I absolutely do not believe, are well known, and well defined, and my disbelief in their intellectual validity is absolute.

As I have said before to any religious people, I do not believe in any god, which they do, which is to say, if they believe it is a god, I do not believe it is a god.

So my atheism is firmly correlated to the disbelief that their is any intellectual validity to the religious ideas of theists, as exampled by what they say and do, it is a reactionary position, and if I never had to deal with the consequences of behaviour inspired by, or demanded of people, because of their belief in an interventionist god, I would have no position on the matter, I would not care.

While god may not exist, the consequences of the actions of those who claim it does, certainly do, and so I need to voice my separation from their beliefs.

How come these types of topics are now appearing up top?

mozzaok wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 9:26am:

Even trying to define atheism is a stretch, when the theism that it is being applied against is so loose as to include belief in collective thinking that drives forces like the stockmarket.

You gotta have faith in Atheism. Keep trying.  :P

You see, I might be playing devil's advocate, but it's what you're up against.  There are some very strange theistic religions out there. I already mentioned Eastern religions, which come very close to what I described.

As an Atheist, you are effectively saying "I don't really care  about the details of what you believe. As long as you call it a god, I disagree on principle." Isn't it?

Atheism is effectively a position of protest, mainly against established religions. It's a very negative belief, because if theists didn't exist, the term would be meaningless. It's like a fungal growth that depends on theism. (without the negative connotations)  

If I'm defining my world view, I prefer to talk about things that are important for me rather than things that don't concern me. So the last thing I'd want to call myself would be an atheist.

mozzaok wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 9:26am:

Even trying to define atheism is a stretch, when the theism that it is being applied against is so loose as to include belief in collective thinking that drives forces like the stockmarket. Atheism is a responsive attitude that people take to position themselves, and their understanding of the world, and their personal beliefs defined by that understanding. Because I can conceive of god propositions that are plausible, many people of religious persuasion will then seek to categorise me as Agnostic, while I very strongly identify as Atheist, and I do so because the Theistic beliefs that I absolutely do not believe, are well known, and well defined, and my disbelief in their intellectual validity is absolute. As I have said before to any religious people, I do not believe in any god, which they do, which is to say, if they believe it is a god, I do not believe it is a god. So my atheism is firmly correlated to the disbelief that their is any intellectual validity to the religious ideas of theists, as exampled by what they say and do, it is a reactionary position, and if I never had to deal with the consequences of behaviour inspired by, or demanded of people, because of their belief in an interventionist god, I would have no position on the matter, I would not care. While god may not exist, the consequences of the actions of those who claim it does, certainly do, and so I need to voice my separation from their beliefs.

are you just as willing to voice your separation from the athiests that have murdeed tens of millions in the name of their athiesim? mao, stalin etc?

longweekend58 wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 6:33pm:

are you just as willing to voice your separation from the athiests that have murdeed tens of millions in the name of their athiesim? mao, stalin etc?

Didn't they do that in the name of 'Communism' ? I don't think that the mob of Christians  who skinned Hypatia alive then dragged her through the streets of Alexandria behind a chariot, did so in the name of Christianity either.  

The common factor is power. Power corrupts.

muso wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 6:42pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 6:33pm: are you just as willing to voice your separation from the athiests that have murdeed tens of millions in the name of their athiesim? mao, stalin etc? Didn't they do that in the name of 'Communism' ? I don't think that the mob of Christians  who skinned Hypatia alive then dragged her through the streets of Alexandria behind a chariot, did so in the name of Christianity either.   The common factor is power. Power corrupts.

well said. the reasons for war are many and varied and the official one is usually the least true.

longweekend58 wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 6:33pm:

are you just as willing to voice your separation from the athiests that have murdeed tens of millions in the name of their athiesim? mao, stalin etc?

That's a point I pondered when I was thinking about how many have died for religion.   I think though that Mao, Stalin etc were more interested in killing the power wielded by the Church than in killing their congregations.  Frighten off their worshippers and the Church loses it's power over them.  The worshippers were collateral damage.  In short I don't believe the commos gave a toss about what anyone believed as long as they toed the line and ceded power to them. Politics was their creed, not atheism. They are no more typical of atheists than Savanarola was typical of the average Sunday churchgoer.

Why do people see atheism as  anti religion?? That's like saying that  air is anti vacuum,  or fire is anti ice or light is anti darkness.  They are just states of being in which the other element is absent. Atheists are just content to exist with an absence of religious belief, what is so hard to understand about that??  
I don't understand why religious people give a stuff if atheists go to hell, nor do I understand why atheists feel they have to stand  and fight to uphold their belief in nothing.   ::)
If people want to believe in gods, fairies, Santa or UFOs...well, good on 'em, knock yourselves out,  just pleeease don't come knocking on my door because I don't believe you and I'm not in need of saving. OK?  ;)

Quote:

Atheists are just content to exist with an absence of religious belief, what is so hard to understand about that??

Might have something to do with the ones like Grey that want to ban everything to do with relgion. It's like they want to have the dark ages all over again, but with atheists in charge this time.


Quote:

I don't understand why religious people give a stuff if atheists go to hell

Really?

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 7:40pm:

Quote: Atheists are just content to exist with an absence of religious belief, what is so hard to understand about that??   Might have something to do with the ones like Grey that want to ban everything to do with relgion. It's like they want to have the dark ages all over again, but with atheists in charge this time. [quote]I don't understand why religious people give a stuff if atheists go to hell

Really?[/quote]

Can't speak for Grey's motivations but I wonder if it's more to do with putting up resistance to the power and mind games that churches play than with atheism per se.  People at a distance from the spin and bs have a clearer vision of the con and want to do something about it.  Personally I think the 'faithful' get what they deserve for being gullible. 8-)


"Really?" what?  you mean you can explain what rights the virtuously heaven bound have to force their dogma down the throats of people who don't want a bar of it?  Do tell so I can stop being annoyed at them ringing my doorbell!  I never feel compelled to  ring theirs! >:(

Please note that this particular post isn't arguing religion or lack of it..it's arguing personality traits displayed by people who desperately need everyone to believe what they do in order to bolster their irrational hopes of 'life after death'. They seem to think that if everyone would just believe it then that would make it true.  Duh. ::)

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 8:34am:

Sappho wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 7:57am: Eastern beliefs place emphasis on striving for perfection/ nirvana/ nothingness. Such concepts are of the mind alone and not reflected in reality.   And they almost universally posit a duality of mind and body, such that while the body is transient and contingent, there is 'something immortal and immanent in mind' (either mind itself or a divine essence which causes mind) which (in most systems) transmigrates - at least and until some 'point of perfection' has been reached or achieved, whereupon this disembodied 'mind' or 'essence' 'exists' in a state of 'neither being nor non-being'. The deification of mind in all but name.

Excellent point.
In all these recent threads on god/religion/atheism the mind/body split has hardly been mentioned (besides myself). Most religions, as you point out, are predicated on the mind/body split. If you expose the falsity of the mind/body split then all their beliefs come crashing down.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 3^rd, 2011 at 9:53am:

Excellent point. In all these recent threads on god/religion/atheism the mind/body split has hardly been mentioned (besides myself). Most religions, as you point out, are predicated on the mind/body split. If you expose the falsity of the mind/body split then all their beliefs come crashing down.

The mind is the software, the brain is the hardware.  Without the hardware (including the memory), the software can't exist.

The mind exists as a phenomenon that may be intrinsic to the brain, but it's still easier to talk about it separately in an empirical sense. Even looking like it that way, if I choose to define that fact as 'supernatural', who cares? It's still a duality of sorts.

longweekend58 wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 6:33pm:

are you just as willing to voice your separation from the athiests that have murdeed tens of millions in the name of their athiesim? mao, stalin etc?

As I've said before, atheists don't have a thing in common excepting a disbelief in gods and things that go bump in the night. You might as well say that Stalin and Hitler both liked toasted cheese and so all people that like toasted cheese are dangerous psychopaths.

Quote:

Freediver - Might have something to do with the ones like Grey that want to ban everything to do with relgion. It's like they want to have the dark ages all over again, but with atheists in charge this time.

With atheists in charge it might not be dark. But this is just flogging a dead horse, I've made it clear many times that i'm not ion favour of banning things, I wanted to discociate myself from the argument that the burqa was bad because it covered faces and said ironically,  I'd be more infavour of banning all religious uniforms.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 3^rd, 2011 at 9:53am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 8:34am: Sappho wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 7:57am: Eastern beliefs place emphasis on striving for perfection/ nirvana/ nothingness. Such concepts are of the mind alone and not reflected in reality.   And they almost universally posit a duality of mind and body, such that while the body is transient and contingent, there is 'something immortal and immanent in mind' (either mind itself or a divine essence which causes mind) which (in most systems) transmigrates - at least and until some 'point of perfection' has been reached or achieved, whereupon this disembodied 'mind' or 'essence' 'exists' in a state of 'neither being nor non-being'. The deification of mind in all but name. Excellent point. In all these recent threads on god/religion/atheism the mind/body split has hardly been mentioned (besides myself). Most religions, as you point out, are predicated on the mind/body split. If you expose the falsity of the mind/body split then all their beliefs come crashing down.

Nah... I like the idea of my mind being down loaded into some kind of super computer and living in virtual reality as is the case in The Culture sci fi books by Iain Banks. And if it were possible to do such a thing... I still wouldn't believe in god/s.

Quote:

Can't speak for Grey's motivations but I wonder if it's more to do with putting up resistance to the power and mind games that churches play than with atheism per se.

There is a pretty big gap between resisting mind games and trying to ban something.


Quote:

"Really?" what?  you mean you can explain what rights the virtuously heaven bound have to force their dogma down the throats of people who don't want a bar of it?  Do tell so I can stop being annoyed at them ringing my doorbell!  I never feel compelled to  ring theirs!

I was referring to your alleged inability to understand why they care.


Quote:

With atheists in charge it might not be dark. But this is just flogging a dead horse

So your version of a government imposed utopian society would magically work better than every other attemp merely because it is founded in atheism - an ideology defined only by what it lacks?


Quote:

I've made it clear many times that i'm not ion favour of banning things

No you haven't. All you have done is contradict yourself and give brief, vague explanations.

muso wrote on May 3^rd, 2011 at 11:20am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 3rd, 2011 at 9:53am: Excellent point. In all these recent threads on god/religion/atheism the mind/body split has hardly been mentioned (besides myself). Most religions, as you point out, are predicated on the mind/body split. If you expose the falsity of the mind/body split then all their beliefs come crashing down. The mind is the software, the brain is the hardware.  Without the hardware (including the memory), the software can't exist. The mind exists as a phenomenon that may be intrinsic to the brain, but it's still easier to talk about it separately in an empirical sense. Even looking like it that way, if I choose to define that fact as 'supernatural', who cares? It's still a duality of sorts.

Despite all the complexities used to describe the mind, there's still no evidence to prove it can escape time, space, and causality. Meaning, the mind is 'natural' as opposed to 'supernatural'.

That is an odd criteria for something to be supernatural. The conventional view of time and space has already been disproved, and our current concept of causality is also being challenged.

Deleted by poster.

Reason: - Wrong thread.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 3^rd, 2011 at 6:09pm:

Despite all the complexities used to describe the mind, there's still no evidence to prove it can escape time, space, and causality. Meaning, the mind is 'natural' as opposed to 'supernatural'.

Meaning nothing of the sort. Time, space and causality are categories of reason, not of 'nature'.
(viz Critique of Pure Reason, 1781.)

freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2011 at 7:00pm:

That is an odd criteria for something to be supernatural. The conventional view of time and space has already been disproved, and our current concept of causality is also being challenged.

You'll have to expand on that.

Soren wrote on May 3^rd, 2011 at 7:19pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 3rd, 2011 at 6:09pm: Despite all the complexities used to describe the mind, there's still no evidence to prove it can escape time, space, and causality. Meaning, the mind is 'natural' as opposed to 'supernatural'. Meaning nothing of the sort. Time, space and causality are categories of reason, not of 'nature'. (viz Critique of Pure Reason, 1781.)

I am not interested in Kant's idealism here. Time, space, and causality can be empirically measured.

Einstein's theories of relativity have replaced the conventional (Newtonian) concepts of time, mass and space. These things are not some kind of fixed reference point by which to judge all else.

A more sensible criteria for delineating the natural from the supernatural is repeatability and consistency.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 3^rd, 2011 at 6:09pm:

Despite all the complexities used to describe the mind, there's still no evidence to prove it can escape time, space, and causality. Meaning, the mind is 'natural' as opposed to 'supernatural'.

I don't consider "supernatural" to be a cognitively meaningful term. How do you distinguish the terms supernatural and nonsense?

You describe it as that which can escape time, space, and causality. How do you detect it then? How do you know that it's distinct from a brain function?

freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2011 at 8:45pm:

A more sensible criteria for delineating the natural from the supernatural is repeatability and consistency.

Can you expand on that? Are you saying that my random number generator is supernatural?

freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2011 at 7:00pm:

That is an odd criteria for something to be supernatural. The conventional view of time and space has already been disproved, and our current concept of causality is also being challenged.

Is Immanuel Kant aware of that?  :P

Quote:

I don't consider "supernatural" to be a cognitively meaningful term. How do you distinguish the terms supernatural and nonsense?

One involves a value judgement.


Quote:

Can you expand on that? Are you saying that my random number generator is supernatural?

It is repeatable. You can get it to do it's thing at will. The outcome is entirely predictable if you know the initial state and trigger time. Also, even if you assume it to be genuinely random, you can measure and quantify the distribution. Consistency does not have to mean predictability. Repeatability and consistency are the 'rules of thumb' we use in deciding whether to describe something as natural or supernatural.


Quote:

Is Immanuel Kant aware of that?

He is dead.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 3^rd, 2011 at 9:53am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 8:34am: Sappho wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 7:57am: Eastern beliefs place emphasis on striving for perfection/ nirvana/ nothingness. Such concepts are of the mind alone and not reflected in reality.   And they almost universally posit a duality of mind and body, such that while the body is transient and contingent, there is 'something immortal and immanent in mind' (either mind itself or a divine essence which causes mind) which (in most systems) transmigrates - at least and until some 'point of perfection' has been reached or achieved, whereupon this disembodied 'mind' or 'essence' 'exists' in a state of 'neither being nor non-being'. The deification of mind in all but name. Excellent point. In all these recent threads on god/religion/atheism the mind/body split has hardly been mentioned (besides myself). Most religions, as you point out, are predicated on the mind/body split. If you expose the falsity of the mind/body split then all their beliefs come crashing down.

You might imagine that without an immortal 'deified' mind distinct from body this would expose a fatal flaw in the respective belief system, but I doubt that would matter much to believers... Metaphysical beliefs are tenacious and the theory of god / immortality of life's essence (for want of a term where mind is not separate from body) would survive acknowledgement that duality is false.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 7:40pm:

Quote: Atheists are just content to exist with an absence of religious belief, what is so hard to understand about that??   Might have something to do with the ones like Grey that want to ban everything to do with relgion. It's like they want to have the dark ages all over again, but with atheists in charge this time.

Well, I think you are going a bit over the top there Freediver, but having spent a couple of days at the Australian Foundation for Atheists, I very much disagree with the quote above yours.

I have learned that there are many atheists out there who are not content living without belief in theism. Rather, they obsess over theism and why they don't accept it as valid or evidenced. They like to engage theists in debate about theism with the purposes of denigrating same. They are also extremely intolerant... so much so that they are causing me to think about my attitudes and whether they are extreme... such as my desire to see all forms of religion removed from state schools.

You would think that they would be promoting atheist ethics and morality... seeking to find some kind of universal goal such as the exploration of the mind... refining their reasoning and logic... but not a lot of that goes on. They seem too entrenched in disproving theism.

I have to wonder... why do atheists want to disprove theism?  

On the up side... they do engage science... or at least post scientific articles to which others add one liner posts.

freewill beloved ones

believe as you do so wish

eyes yet do not see yes,forgiven

all is in accordance with the divine plan

there is a proven sacred geometrical order ...as above

planets traversing around stars

and so below

electrons traversing around nuclei

and so it is

namaste


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRtHP5dhIxQ&feature=feedu

Sappho wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 3:45am:

I have to wonder... why do atheists want to disprove theism?

They sound more like anti-theists.

Thanks for the message Mr Light.

There is a new moon rising I feel the energy.

Walk carefully and do not harm another living creature.

And so it is.

Quote:

On the up side... they do engage science... or at least post scientific articles to which others add one liner posts.

I think I posted my views about evolution not being a scientific theory and that is what got me banned.

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2011 at 4:27pm:

Quote: Is Immanuel Kant aware of that? He is dead.

Ahem - I know that. It was an oblique reference to those referring to Kant as some kind of authority, when in fact he lived in a historical period of relative ignorance.

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2011 at 4:27pm:

Quote: Can you expand on that? Are you saying that my random number generator is supernatural? It is repeatable. You can get it to do it's thing at will. The outcome is entirely predictable if you know the initial state and trigger time. Also, even if you assume it to be genuinely random, you can measure and quantify the distribution. Consistency does not have to mean predictability. Repeatability and consistency are the 'rules of thumb' we use in deciding whether to describe something as natural or supernatural.

So you're saying that nothing that is supernatural is consistent or repeatable?

My magic watch always tells the right time. It just disappears occasionally.

Sappho wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 3:45am:

I have to wonder... why do atheists want to disprove theism?

IMHO the type of people who actually join Atheist 'clubs' are tortured individuals. They are probably deconverted Baptists who miss the "talking to sky daddy" bit
 

Quote:

On the up side... they do engage science... or at least post scientific articles to which others add one liner posts.

What's the connection?

freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2011 at 8:45pm:

Einstein's theories of relativity have replaced the conventional (Newtonian) concepts of time, mass and space. These things are not some kind of fixed reference point by which to judge all else. A more sensible criteria for delineating the natural from the supernatural is repeatability and consistency.

If God exists, she would be natural, wouldn`t she?  
Not peroxide!  SURELY NOT!!!!!!!!

mavisdavis wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 8:32pm:

freediver wrote on May 3rd, 2011 at 8:45pm: Einstein's theories of relativity have replaced the conventional (Newtonian) concepts of time, mass and space. These things are not some kind of fixed reference point by which to judge all else. A more sensible criteria for delineating the natural from the supernatural is repeatability and consistency. If God exists, she would be natural, wouldn`t she?   Not peroxide!  SURELY NOT!!!!!!!!

Picture yourself in a boat on a river,
With tangerine trees and marmalade skies
Somebody calls you, you answer quite slowly,
A girl with kaleidoscope eyes.

Quote:

It was an oblique reference to those referring to Kant

Who is referencing Kant?


Quote:

So you're saying that nothing that is supernatural is consistent or repeatable? My magic watch always tells the right time. It just disappears occasionally.

Not sure what point you are trying to make muso, if any.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 3^rd, 2011 at 8:32pm:

Soren wrote on May 3rd, 2011 at 7:19pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 3rd, 2011 at 6:09pm: Despite all the complexities used to describe the mind, there's still no evidence to prove it can escape time, space, and causality. Meaning, the mind is 'natural' as opposed to 'supernatural'. Meaning nothing of the sort. Time, space and causality are categories of reason, not of 'nature'. (viz Critique of Pure Reason, 1781.) I am not interested in Kant's idealism here. Time, space, and causality can be empirically measured.

You may not be interested in Kant - and I can't say he is interested in you - but you can ignore him only if you want to be an ignorant fool.

Neither time nor space are either objects (that you can measure or alter or in any way isolate), or qualities inherent in some other object that you can identify.

I am very sorry to disabuse you but they are both in your head - and mine and all our heads - and are not objects out there or attributes of objects.

muso wrote on May 4^th, 2011 at 9:33am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 3rd, 2011 at 6:09pm: Despite all the complexities used to describe the mind, there's still no evidence to prove it can escape time, space, and causality. Meaning, the mind is 'natural' as opposed to 'supernatural'. I don't consider "supernatural" to be a cognitively meaningful term. How do you distinguish the terms supernatural and nonsense? You describe it as that which can escape time, space, and causality. How do you detect it then? How do you know that it's distinct from a brain function?

The mind isn't distinct from a brain function. I thought that's what I was trying to say?

Soren wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 10:24pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 3rd, 2011 at 8:32pm: Soren wrote on May 3rd, 2011 at 7:19pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 3rd, 2011 at 6:09pm: Despite all the complexities used to describe the mind, there's still no evidence to prove it can escape time, space, and causality. Meaning, the mind is 'natural' as opposed to 'supernatural'. Meaning nothing of the sort. Time, space and causality are categories of reason, not of 'nature'. (viz Critique of Pure Reason, 1781.) I am not interested in Kant's idealism here. Time, space, and causality can be empirically measured. You may not be interested in Kant - and I can't say he is interested in you - but you can ignore him only if you want to be an ignorant fool. Neither time nor space are either objects (that you can measure or alter or in any way isolate), or qualities inherent in some other object that you can identify. I am very sorry to disabuse you but they are both in your head - and mine and all our heads - and are not objects out there or attributes of objects.

If that is so then all that exists is consciousness, nothing physical or material. So when you burn yourself or fall over and break an arm, you must think, 'oh, it's all in my head'. Of course this is rubbish. The physical/material world exists regardless of what idealist metaphysical bypaths one wants to play.

Time is measurable, whether that be by measuring the earth's orbit around the sun, or simply by monitoring events in sequence. Cause and effect (causality) exists. Whole sciences are built on this presupposition, and seems to be understanding phenomenon quite well. If you fall and break your arm, the break was caused by the bones impact with an object: see, simple cause and effect relation, nothing idealist there.

I'm not going to get involved in this intellectual game playing except to say that I don't feel a need to define or explain something I don't feel.

Like asking someone to explain why they are not an elephant.

Quote:

So your version of a government imposed utopian society would magically work better than every other attemp merely because it is founded in atheism - an ideology defined only by what it lacks?

I've never called for government imposed utopian societies. I do wish you'd stop putting constructing 'Grey's according to your own prejudices.

For the record - I don't believe there will ever be a Utopian society, but I don't think it's a bad thing to aim for. I think there's a need for a central organising body. It should be implementing the will of the people not imposing its will on the people. I believe in 'reason'. I hold that was is reasonable is very much better than what is merely 'rational'. Rationalism is 'chop logic'.

You imply that 'Atheism' is a complete system, which is idiotic. I think any social system, and any converastion, would be improved by a lack of bullshit.


Quote:

[quote]I've made it clear many times that i'm not ion favour of banning things

No you haven't. All you have done is contradict yourself and give brief, vague explanations.[/quote]

I am not generally in favour of banning things. Sometimes there's a case for baning things. If we never banned anything Christians would probably still be dunking old ladies in ponds until they drown or burning them and their pets on poles.  

Quote:

freediver wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 9:05pm: My magic watch always tells the right time. It just disappears occasionally. Not sure what point you are trying to make muso, if any.

Well I have a magic watch that disappears occasionally, so it must be supernatural. The strange thing is that it always consistently and repeatably tells the time.

In order to say that supernatural phenomena are not repeatable and/or not consistent, you either need to have an encyclopedic and intimate knowledge of supernatural phenomena, or you are basing your assessment on one or two supernatural phenomena that you have experienced.

I'm asking you to provide a list of the supernatural phenomena that you have personally experienced (as opposed to watching Supernatural on TV) and provide an explanation as to why you think you can apply such a blanket statement  to all supernatural phenomena?

- because to use a good Scottish phrase, I think that you're haverin'.

If you like, I'll provide a list of all supernatural phenomena that I have experienced too. They are as follows:

Soren wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 10:24pm:

You may not be interested in Kant - and I can't say he is interested in you - but you can ignore him only if you want to be an ignorant fool.

He's dead, Soren.

muso wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 11:49am:

I'm asking you to provide a list of the supernatural phenomena that you have personally experienced (as opposed to watching Supernatural on TV) and provide an explanation as to why you think you can apply such a blanket statement  to all supernatural phenomena?

'supernatural' = = 'phenomena' external to nature, or, 'phenomena' external to the understanding of the everyday common man ?


supernatural 'phenomena' - relativity - quantum mechanics - cell phones - computers - movies - blindfolded persons who walk in circles - flying bees [science says they shouldn't be able to] - a rational human being, etc.




+++


Quote:

Walking in Circles ...Unsolved scientific curiosities like this are inherently fascinating but I reckon they serve another, rather subtle but even more noble purpose. In the age of ‘smart phones, satellite navigation and shrinking attention spans, they are a sobering reminder that we still have a great deal to learn about ourselves and the world we live in.

http://blogs.abc.net.au/catalyst/2011/05/walking-in-circles.html

muso wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 11:52am:

Soren wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 10:24pm: You may not be interested in Kant - and I can't say he is interested in you - but you can ignore him only if you want to be an ignorant fool. He's dead, Soren.

Ah. I see. So the theory of relativity is also irrelevant, Bertie Einstein being also dead?

Yadda wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 12:29pm:

Walking in Circles ...Unsolved scientific curiosities like this are inherently fascinating but I reckon they serve another, rather subtle but even more noble purpose. In the age of ‘smart phones, satellite navigation and shrinking attention spans, they are a sobering reminder that we still have a great deal to learn about ourselves and the world we live in.[/i]

http://blogs.abc.net.au/catalyst/2011/05/walking-in-circles.html




None of these are supernatural. Have you ever used a Wii? Yadda. Everybody has a natural bias in their balance, except perhaps ballet dancers and some Olympic athletes. Mine is slightly to the right. If blindfolded, that means that I'd walk in clockwise circles.

Now a more obvious example of a supernatural phenomenon is the fact that another tissue pops out when you take one out of the box. That's clearly evidence of God handing you a tissue :P

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 11:00am:

Soren wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 10:24pm: Neither time nor space are either objects (that you can measure or alter or in any way isolate), or qualities inherent in some other object that you can identify. If that is so then all that exists is consciousness, nothing physical or material. So when you burn yourself or fall over and break an arm, you must think, 'oh, it's all in my head'. Of course this is rubbish. The physical/material world exists regardless of what idealist metaphysical bypaths one wants to play.

This is what happens when you stop reading anything that doesn't confirm what you thought when you were 12.

What I said does not mean that only consciousness exists. What it does mean is that you have absolutely no access to any kind of knowledge except via your mind. Simple, really.

Soren wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 2:06pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 6th, 2011 at 11:00am: Soren wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 10:24pm: Neither time nor space are either objects (that you can measure or alter or in any way isolate), or qualities inherent in some other object that you can identify. If that is so then all that exists is consciousness, nothing physical or material. So when you burn yourself or fall over and break an arm, you must think, 'oh, it's all in my head'. Of course this is rubbish. The physical/material world exists regardless of what idealist metaphysical bypaths one wants to play. What I said does not mean that only consciousness exists. What it does mean is that you have absolutely no access to any kind of knowledge except via your mind. Simple, really.

Well, obviously. But that still in no way critiques space, time , and causality as things that can be empirically measured. You're yet to disprove this.


Quote:

This is what happens when you stop reading anything that doesn't confirm what you thought when you were 12.

Oooh, good comeback.
Attempted insults isn't going to get you out of the corner you've pinned yourself in.

Soren wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 1:55pm:

muso wrote on May 6th, 2011 at 11:52am: Soren wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 10:24pm: You may not be interested in Kant - and I can't say he is interested in you - but you can ignore him only if you want to be an ignorant fool. He's dead, Soren. Ah. I see. So the theory of relativity is also irrelevant, Bertie Einstein being also dead?

Well I think Einstein at least lived in a age where scientific knowledge was just a tad more advanced, compared to the lifetime of say Jean-Baptiste Lamarck by comparison.  The End of the 18th Century was a time where geologists were explaining fossils and sedimentary rock features in terms of Noah's flood. (not that there's anything wrong with that)

- not that I have anything against phlogiston either.  

There are things we know nowadays about the nature of matter and space-time that mean that those people who applied their noggin 300 years ago are probably a bit behind the 8 ball.

muso wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 2:05pm:

None of these are supernatural.

To me, 'supernatural' simply means beyond our ken.

e.g.
If we could go back 500 years in time, many common items, and phenomenon that are accepted [if not understood by the common man   :P   ] today, would have been regarded as 'supernatural', to people from that time, imo.





muso wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 2:05pm:

Have you ever used a Wii? Yadda.

Wii ???

What is a Wii ?       ;)



The correct answer is no, never.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 2:14pm:

Soren wrote on May 6th, 2011 at 2:06pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 6th, 2011 at 11:00am: Soren wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 10:24pm: Neither time nor space are either objects (that you can measure or alter or in any way isolate), or qualities inherent in some other object that you can identify. If that is so then all that exists is consciousness, nothing physical or material. So when you burn yourself or fall over and break an arm, you must think, 'oh, it's all in my head'. Of course this is rubbish. The physical/material world exists regardless of what idealist metaphysical bypaths one wants to play. What I said does not mean that only consciousness exists. What it does mean is that you have absolutely no access to any kind of knowledge except via your mind. Simple, really. Well, obviously. But that still in no way critiques space, time , and causality as things that can be empirically measured. You're yet to disprove this. Quote: This is what happens when you stop reading anything that doesn't confirm what you thought when you were 12. Oooh, good comeback. Attempted insults isn't going to get you out of the corner you've pinned yourself in.

What we measure is what the human mind can encompass.  It can encompass physical objects only in time and space. You cannot think of no-time or no-space - yet neither time nor space are objects in themselves or qualities of particular objects.
This does not mean that objects are not real. It means that space and time inhere in the mind, not outside it, in objects. They are the mind's way of organising the relationship of objects.  

Yadda wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 2:54pm:

To me, 'supernatural' simply means beyond our ken.

So the results of this year's Melbourne Cup are supernatural, but once we know the results it will cease to be supernatural?

You're trying hard to give a definition, but I doubt if that's possible.

Yadda wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 2:54pm:

Wii ??? What is a Wii ?       ;) The correct answer is no, never.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wii

It's like a computer game in which you actually exercise. In Wii Fitness Plus for example, you can fly from one target to another  which standing on a pressure sensitive wireless board.

It's a kind of virtual sport but it has a built-in personal assistant who can help you develop strength in various muscle groups, balance and rhythm.  

I use it almost every day. It's a kind of physical exercise that isn't boring.

Quote:

I've never called for government imposed utopian societies. I do wish you'd stop putting constructing 'Grey's according to your own prejudices.

I did try asking you for the list of things you would ban. Every time I askl for 'Grey's according to Grey' all I get is grey changing his mind.


Quote:

I am not generally in favour of banning things. Sometimes there's a case for baning things.

If you can't give a list, can you give a few examples of some new bans you want?


Quote:

Well I have a magic watch that disappears occasionally, so it must be supernatural. The strange thing is that it always consistently and repeatably tells the time.

Except when you can't see it.


Quote:

In order to say that supernatural phenomena are not repeatable and/or not consistent, you either need to have an encyclopedic and intimate knowledge of supernatural phenomena, or you are basing your assessment on one or two supernatural phenomena that you have experienced.

No. I am basing it on what type of thing people call supernatural. Most people have the same definition. They just enver bother putting words to it.


Quote:

yet neither time nor space are objects in themselves or qualities of particular objects

So if i said my dick is bigger than yours, it is all in my mind?

freediver wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 8:50pm:

Quote: yet neither time nor space are objects in themselves or qualities of particular objects So if i said my dick is bigger than yours, it is all in my mind?

Yes.

Quote:

I did try asking you for the list of things you would ban. Every time I askl for 'Grey's according to Grey' all I get is grey changing his mind.

And I try to be as clear as possible and all I get is you being a dickhead and misrepresenting me.


Quote:

If you can't give a list, can you give a few examples of some new bans you want?

Why pick on me? You're more in favour of banning things than I am.

Quote:

Why pick on me? You're more in favour of banning things than I am.

Such as?

I only pick on you because you keep talking about how nice it would be to ban things, and the more I ask the more you seem to want banned.

muso wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 8:35pm:

Yadda wrote on May 6th, 2011 at 2:54pm: To me, 'supernatural' simply means beyond our ken. So the results of this year's Melbourne Cup are supernatural, but once we know the results it will cease to be supernatural? You're trying hard to give a definition, but I doubt if that's possible.

oh for goodness sake!!! 'super natural' means ABOVE THE NATURAL. it is an event that defies natural laws. not understanding is implicit in the definition but something you dont understand isnt necessarily supernatural. God is supernatural because he exists outside - ABOVE - our natural realm.

A supernatural event is an act which is impossible by any natural means.

The long-dead rising from their graves would be a supernatural event.

A mind existing without a body/brain would be a supernatural event.

Turning water into wine by vocal command alone is a supernatural event.

etc... etc... etc...

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 2:27pm:

A supernatural event is an act which is impossible by any natural means. The long-dead rising from their graves would be a supernatural event. A mind existing without a body/brain would be a supernatural event. Turning water into wine by vocal command alone is a supernatural event. etc... etc... etc...

I to thought that was pretty obvious.

Soren wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 9:16pm:

freediver wrote on May 6th, 2011 at 8:50pm: Quote: yet neither time nor space are objects in themselves or qualities of particular objects So if i said my dick is bigger than yours, it is all in my mind? Yes.

You know .. some posts should be framed forever in a Hall of Fame lol :)

Lisa Jones wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 3:28pm:

Soren wrote on May 6th, 2011 at 9:16pm: freediver wrote on May 6th, 2011 at 8:50pm: Quote: yet neither time nor space are objects in themselves or qualities of particular objects So if i said my dick is bigger than yours, it is all in my mind? Yes. You know .. some posts should be framed forever in a Hall of Fame lol :)

yep... a bit of a classic!

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 8:16am:

Quote: Why pick on me? You're more in favour of banning things than I am. Such as? I only pick on you because you keep talking about how nice it would be to ban things, and the more I ask the more you seem to want banned.

Such as a number of words you've banned from use on this forum. All I've said is that to ban the burqa would offend my sensibilities but if it were banned I wouldn't lose sleep. From that you continue to make out I'm king of the banners, it's bloody bullshit.  

Quote:

A supernatural event is an act which is impossible by any natural means.

Not a useful definition, because it requires people to know all that is possible by natural laws in order to identify something as supernatural, which is clearly not the case.


Quote:

Such as a number of words you've banned from use on this forum.

So you equate what i do with a private forum with you wanting the government to deny people fundamental human rights?


Quote:

All I've said is that to ban the burqa would offend my sensibilities but if it were banned I wouldn't lose sleep.

You have said lots of things Grey, many of them self contradictory.


Quote:

From that you continue to make out I'm king of the banners, it's bloody bullshit.

What I continue to make out is that every time I ask for clarification on what you would have banned you suddenly go all shy on me, or mumble off on tangents about 'practical difficulties'.

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 4:49pm:

Quote: A supernatural event is an act which is impossible by any natural means. Not a useful definition, because it requires people to know all that is possible by natural laws in order to identify something as supernatural, which is clearly not the case.

Not at all. If you allow the word itself to have any lexical or semantic relevance at all, then you should at least allow that it is the principle by which one should judge the cause of all events either observed or reported (in terms of their genesis). i.e.  If an event purportedly happened and there is no possibility that it could have been caused by natural laws (or in principle caused by natural laws), then it is a supernatural event.

Ridiculously, the Catholic Church would agree with this principle, yet still ascribe a supernatural status to those events that (conveniently) indicate sainthood towards dead people who are in favour with Catholic hierarchy, even over and above the mundane explanations given by those more equipped to determine the event's status. (e.g. the "miracle" that allowed sainthood to be bestowed on Mary MacKillop)

So you define supernatural as unnatural?

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 6:26pm:

So you define supernatural as unnatural?

Yes - Insofar as a supernatural event can only be caused by transcending natural laws - and particularly when assigned to actions of an omnipotent transcendent being.

Would it be fair to describe your definition as being as useful as saying that supernatural means supernatural?

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 9:50pm:

Would it be fair to describe your definition as being as useful as saying that supernatural means supernatural?

For a fathead like you, what difference does it make?

You do realise you idiots bang on about sh!t for f-ckin' days.

Sh!t that could have quite easily have been revealed by just turning to a dictionary, or failing that, a simple Google result and picking any of the first half dozen or so results.

Talk about going out of your way in an attempt to complicate the simple.

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 9:50pm:

Would it be fair to describe your definition as being as useful as saying that supernatural means supernatural?

Supernatural can only have meaning if it arises as a consequence of one's belief in a transcendent being or principle that has the power to suspend or subvert natural laws. Otherwise it can only be used metaphorically and advisedly to refer to an impossible event.

Life_goes_on wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 10:03pm:

You do realise you idiots bang on about sh!t for f-ckin' days. Sh!t that could have quite easily have been revealed by just turning to a dictionary, or failing that, a simple Google result and picking any of the first half dozen or so results. Talk about going out of your way in an attempt to complicate the simple.

These are exercises in the practise of rhetoric... Give it a try... See how you go...

Quote:

Supernatural can only have meaning if it arises as a consequence of one's belief

So the term cannot mean anything to atheists? Does that mean you get all confused when you watch TV?

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 10:09pm:

Quote: Supernatural can only have meaning if it arises as a consequence of one's belief So the term cannot mean anything to atheists? Does that mean you get all confused when you watch TV?

Supernatural can only have meaning if it arises as a consequence of one's belief in a transcendent being or principle that has the power to suspend or subvert natural laws. Otherwise it can only be used metaphorically and advisedly to refer to an impossible event.

So that is what you think when you watch TV? It's OK Helian, it's not real. Those ghosts are just an advisory metaphor?

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 10:08pm:

Life_goes_on wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 10:03pm: You do realise you idiots bang on about sh!t for f-ckin' days. Sh!t that could have quite easily have been revealed by just turning to a dictionary, or failing that, a simple Google result and picking any of the first half dozen or so results. Talk about going out of your way in an attempt to complicate the simple. These are exercises in the practise of rhetoric... Give it a try... See how you go...

Naaaaaaaa....I'm way too apathetic.
The older I get, the less I care.

I don't think you need to posit a supernatural being to imagine that being is not necessarily exclusively material ('natural').

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 10:16pm:

So that is what you think when you watch TV? It's OK Helian, it's not real. Those ghosts are just an advisory metaphor?

Please look up the word 'advisedly'... Like most humans, I have the capacity to suspend incredulity to enjoy a good horror flick, I do so advisedly.

Life_goes_on wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 10:18pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 10:08pm: Life_goes_on wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 10:03pm: You do realise you idiots bang on about sh!t for f-ckin' days. Sh!t that could have quite easily have been revealed by just turning to a dictionary, or failing that, a simple Google result and picking any of the first half dozen or so results. Talk about going out of your way in an attempt to complicate the simple. These are exercises in the practise of rhetoric... Give it a try... See how you go... Naaaaaaaa....I'm way too apathetic. The older I get, the less I care.

Not too apathetic to reply to this thread... Go on... Give it a try... You might surprise yourself.

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 10:19pm:

freediver wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 10:16pm: So that is what you think when you watch TV? It's OK Helian, it's not real. Those ghosts are just an advisory metaphor? Please look up the word 'advisedly'... Like most humans, I have the capacity to suspend incredulity to enjoy a good horror flick, I do so advisedly.

You watch horror movies "With careful consideration; deliberately"?

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 10:52pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 10:19pm: freediver wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 10:16pm: So that is what you think when you watch TV? It's OK Helian, it's not real. Those ghosts are just an advisory metaphor? Please look up the word 'advisedly'... Like most humans, I have the capacity to suspend incredulity to enjoy a good horror flick, I do so advisedly. You watch horror movies "With careful consideration; deliberately"?

Socrates, you ain't ;D

I watch the horror movie with the conscious understanding that I am watching fantasy - as if impossible events could occur. That is, I am aware that I am deliberately suspending my incredulity in order to enjoy the film.