Blasphemy or Biblical?

[_subgenius]

Too bad for you I had already quoted that definition and discussed it. You seem to have avoided that. Some things like lightning where supernatural at one time since they were beyond the understanding of science.

how are you not getting this?
Let us just flat out assume that the consciousness is understood by science. Therefore it is "natural".
This was the "given" for my argument.
Can you agree that the conscious is either natural or supernatural? regardless of when someone discovers which it is?
You seem to be completely confused between what the supernatural is and what the unknown is...they are not interchangeable.

Whether humans are free to choose is still a heated subject of debate in philosophy, and will be for the foreseeable future. I still don't see anything in what you say that indicates you know anything the rest of us don't. We may very well not be free to choose based on what happens to us, and may just have the illusion of it because we have a complex brain and astronomical environmental factors that make it possible to answer at this point.

i appreciate you weighing in with a elaborate and uninformed rambling to state that "free will? eh, who knows?"

I am just saying that I define natural as what is possible, so anything God does would just fall into what is natural. Supernatural to me would just be what we don't understand. Many religious have this view including many LDS. If you understand how I am viewing it there really is no contradiction.

well, if we are just going to make up our definitions for words then obviously when you say "possible" i define that as "observable", and when anything "can be" i define that as "dreamy".

Based on how you want to view it yes, so I guess God would then be subject to supernatural laws.

ok, now i realize that you are incapable. Supernatural laws? really? Is that like saying thieves surely must obey the "burglar laws"?

No one has an objective reference, and it really doesn't affect whetehr someone is moral orm not

of course you just made an objective statement...the irony is like a little vomit in the back of the throat.....at least you are predictable.

here is the defiention of amoral


Lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something.

actually that is just A definition...you are a texas sharpshooter

Since atheists are concerned with the rightness or wrongness of something they are then moral.

so tell me then....what is your definition of "rightness"....and what is your meaning for "wrongness"....and why would an atheist be concerned with either?

By that logic everyone is amoral. No one has an objective reference, and religious morals are very much about personal benefit.

dumbest statement on this thread, imho.
Are your parents aware that you are on their computer?

[_gdemetz]

Themis, your "not really" comment doesn't explain the "red shoe" incident I mentioned very well at all. Also, I'm sure that if you told that lady that it was all in her mind, she would not accept that at all. How could someones mind roam several stories high and see what is on the roof of a building if that mind is still in the body?!?

[_Themis]

how are you not getting this?

Unfortunately I am the one who does understand how people view the issue differently. You view it one way which I understand, but you seem to not understand how other people view it.

Let us just flat out assume that the consciousness is understood by science. Therefore it is "natural".
This was the "given" for my argument.
Can you agree that the conscious is either natural or supernatural?

I understand how you define supernatural, but then I don't think by that definition that it exists, and if it does, there is no way for you or I to know.

regardless of when someone discovers which it is?
You seem to be completely confused between what the supernatural is and what the unknown is...they are not interchangeable.

I gave how I define the terms, but you seem to not be able to view things outside your own view. This is very limiting if you ever want to understand others.

i appreciate you weighing in with a elaborate and uninformed rambling to state that "free will? eh, who knows?"

I should point out that this who issue for you is not about consciousness as a whole, but whether we have free choice. You conclude without any substance to back it up that free choice is a reality for humans, or that a complex brain is not capable of it unless you add some unknown magic pixie dust. Neither of us really know, and at least I am willing to admit such. You just want to make a bunch of assertions you don't know as absolute fact and call everyone else names for not agreeing with you. Do you feel somehow smarter by constantly throwing out insults.

well, if we are just going to make up our definitions for words then obviously when you say "possible" i define that as "observable", and when anything "can be" i define that as "dreamy".

How I define it is well within how others do as well, and it does agree with the dictionary definition of it being beyond scientific understanding.

ok, now i realize that you are incapable. Supernatural laws? really? Is that like saying thieves surely must obey the "burglar laws"?

Natural laws are not the same as legal laws. You can break one but not the other. When it comes to supernatural as how you view it, you cannot show that it even exists. It is just a belief without substance.

of course you just made an objective statement...the irony is like a little vomit in the back of the throat.....at least you are predictable.

Still no substance coming from you. I suppose this is all you have to attack athists with.

so tell me then....what is your definition of "rightness"....and what is your meaning for "wrongness"....and why would an atheist be concerned with either?

It depends on the individual or group. Each group or individual whether religious or not can have different ideas of what is right or wrong. Fortunately most in society can agree on a number of them so as to be able to have a workable society. Atheists are no different then religious people here. Why you cannot understand this I can only conclude that your hatred for this particular groups influences your ability to rationally think about it.

[_Themis]

Themis, your "not really" comment doesn't explain the "red shoe" incident I mentioned very well at all. Also, I'm sure that if you told that lady that it was all in her mind, she would not accept that at all. How could someones mind roam several stories high and see what is on the roof of a building if that mind is still in the body?!?

I am not familiar with the story, but I suspect you accept the story as total fact. The problem I suspect is that we don't really know all the factors or details involved that may create a totally different conclusion then the one you want. I am not saying it is not possible, but then we don't know anywhere near enough to conclude anything. You make conclusions based on your religious views.

[_subgenius]

so tell me then....what is your definition of "rightness"....and what is your meaning for "wrongness"....and why would an atheist be concerned with either?

It depends on the individual or group. Each group or individual whether religious or not can have different ideas of what is right or wrong. Fortunately most in society can agree on a number of them so as to be able to have a workable society. Atheists are no different then religious people here. Why you cannot understand this I can only conclude that your hatred for this particular groups influences your ability to rationally think about it.

Here we have a great example of the weaker mind and the lack of true confidence exhibited by, and inherent to, the atheist's position. Notice that i speak of true confidence as opposed to the arrogance that is usually a given from an atheistic viewpoint.
Quite simply and quite clearly i asked for "your definition" - and to which you responded with a clumsy dodge reaffirming your already weak position of some sort of universal subjectivity that surely makes more sense after 2 or 3 hits from a well loaded bong.
So, either you can answer the question and will not, or you simply can not answer the question.

But perhaps you are going to try a little smoke and mirrors...speak about some sort of "basic human rights", or how the "majority rules"...all things which have no scientific basis.....they have no empirical evidence for their existence, but you, no doubt, have some sort of "personal definition" for them...in fact the entire topic of "right" and "wrong" is metaphysical....you know, kinda "supernatural...unless of course you can somehow prove, with evidence - with wonderful "natural" evidence, that "right" and "wrong" actually exists...can you?....
So, from your response above we clearly see that you believe in the supernatural existence of things, because you already admit that "right" and "wrong" exist.....so, my friend....in the words of our dear Buffalot...

...you lose

[_Themis]

Here we have a great example of the weaker mind and the lack of true confidence exhibited by, and inherent to, the atheist's position.

Again, not sure how you think constant insults is going to make your argument better. I am also not atheist, but agnostic. As to rightness I will go with the dictionary.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rightness?s=t

Quite simply and quite clearly i asked for "your definition" - and to which you responded with a clumsy dodge reaffirming your already weak position of some sort of universal subjectivity that surely makes more sense after 2 or 3 hits from a well loaded bong.

No ones is going to be objective. It's all subjective which I am sure you hate.

in fact the entire topic of "right" and "wrong" is metaphysical....you know, kinda "supernatural...unless of course you can somehow prove, with evidence - with wonderful "natural" evidence, that "right" and "wrong" actually exists...can you?....

Your link says nothing about right or wrong, but certainly it can be part of the subject, although very subjective. Right and wrong exist only as concepts. by the way here is that sites definition of supernatural. Interesting that it has more then one definition. One of them fits with how I see it.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural?show=0&t=1335059831

So, from your response above we clearly see that you believe in the supernatural existence of things, because you already admit that "right" and "wrong" exist.....so, my friend....in the words of our dear Buffalot...

...you lose

LOL Not sure how saying someone loses helps you to win. Again, I already said they do not exist except as concepts.

[Guest]

so tell me then....what is your definition of "rightness"....and what is your meaning for "wrongness"....and why would an atheist be concerned with either?

Why would an atheist not be concerned with either?

[_bcuzbcuz]

so tell me then....what is your definition of "rightness"....and what is your meaning for "wrongness"....and why would an atheist be concerned with either?

You surmise that an atheist will have no concept of "rightness" or "wrongness". Because in your mind these are concepts strictly in the realm of a god? Without a god defining the parameters of behavior, man is a rudderless ship with no abilities to steer actions?

Then "rightness" and "wrongness" should be what exemplifies Christians (Mormons). Mormons would never steal or lie. They would never covet, neither a man's wealth nor his wife. Mormons would forsake wealth and give their worldly goods to the needy. Mormons would turn the other cheek. Mormons would never kill.

Since god outlines how Mormons should live and Mormons have the concept of right and wrong, there should no wrong committed in any Mormon community, except by unbelievers and atheists. Are the jails in Utah inhabited only by atheists?

Last time I visited Salt Lake City I saw the parking lots of the shopping malls full of cars on the sabbath. You're telling me those cars were only those owned by atheists and non-believers? I went to the temple grounds and a beggar stood outside the gates. There was a sign posted, inside the gates, recommending that no money be given such people. Was that a sign posted by an atheist?

What good is claiming the moral high ground if Mormons aren't there?

[_gdemetz]

Yes, those conclusions are based at least partially on my religious views, however, there are so many other evidences as well as cases like the "red shoe" story I mentioned which clearly indicate that there was a legitimate out of body experience by ones spirit.

[_Drifting]

A rare species only needs to be seen once to confirm it's existence.

The Loch Ness Monster was indeed a rare species, yet it was seen several times over the space of a decade or two and even photographed. It was seen by local people and by the odd tourist travelling in that area.

Do you accept this to be sufficient evidence that the Loch Ness Monster is real?