Atheism

[AnlytcPhil]

Do you believe in a conscience or heaven? Why did Francis’ statement appeal to you?

Yes we have consciences that evolution has given us to protect the species. Following the golden rule is the most logical way to have the best life. No, I am unable to believe in anything called “Heaven”. It was nice to hear of the Pope’s ideology that those who follow their consciences are all effectively on the same side.

 

[rcwitness]

Yes we have consciences that evolution has given us to protect the species.

How do you describe evolution? What do you mean by “evolution has given us”?

Following the golden rule is the most logical way to have the best life.

What is the Golden Rule? Do you follow this rule without fault?

No, I am unable to believe in anything called “Heaven”

How are you prevented from this belief?

It was nice to hear of the Pope’s ideology that those who follow their consciences are all effectively on the same side.

Do you think Pope Francis believes our conscience leads us to Atheism?

 

[AnlytcPhil]

How do you describe evolution? What do you mean by “evolution has given us”? What is the Golden Rule? Do you follow this rule without fault?
How are you prevented from this belief? Do you think Pope Francis believes our conscience leads us to Atheism?

Evolution works on the Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ principle. Species that don’t have a natural instinct to be kind and loving to one another and help each other out don’t usually survive. I do try to treat others as I would want to be treated. I don’t always do that, but when I don’t it’s usually because I wasn’t thinking.

I can’t imagine anything to label “Creator of the universe”. I can only reason that if people speak without being able to imagine anything they could be talking about, then I am unable to believe that they could be talking about anything. But I believe that they honestly believe they are.

The pope is a good caring man. So are most Christians. Of course he doesn’t cause people to become atheists. BTW, I’m not an atheist or an agnostic. Atheists and agnostics claim to know how to imagine something labeled “God” that they disbelieve or withhold judgment on the existence of. But we theological noncognitivists can see no meaning in the sound “God”. That’s what sets theological noncognitivism apart from atheism and agnosticism.

 

[Russell_SA]

Atheism is a belief that God does not exist. It’s a conclusion, conviction, position, state of mind, stance. I did not use it in multiple meanings. I sense hostility with you. I don’t think I should continue our conversation

I’m not sure why you don’t want me to use the term belief.

I’m stating my belief. Belief in God is relying on Spiritual sight, not a science experiment.

I don’t know what this was referring to.

This is debatable. You can’t observe this.

But how do I know this? Others may observe what I claim. The conviction of sin is through faith.

Again, we are not anti-science. Science is compatible with faith. But faith is necessary where science cannot be applied, to believe in the Creator.

A butterfly which begins life in one stage, then goes through metamorphosis in a chrysalis stage, and then to a very different form, is an incredible sign of intelligent design!

Atheism, as used by atheists, not theists, is the assertion that they have not been convinced that there is any supernaturalism. They have not been convinced that fairies, devils, gods, angles, magic, etc exist. They are NOT stating that they DO NOT EXIST. Do you understand the difference between, “This does not exist” and “I do not believe that this exists”? We are not making the positive claim that something exists or does not exists. We are stating that we do not believe or been convinced that your argument for the existence of something exists. That is the difference. Not knowing this fundamental identity just goes to show how little you have engaged atheists and only learned about them through other theists.

I am not attempting to be hostile, only frustrated with the dialog of conversation with theists. They like to use belief as the same as trust, to have been convinced, to put faith into, and as a state of higher level of consciousness, or apparently now in this case, to represent wearing one’s religion on their sleeve. So now belief means an outward display of someone’s faith or religion. See how that word becomes ambiguous and unclear when trying to communicate an idea to someone. So the statement of “We recognize that belief is inevitable. Not only inevitable, but fashioned to be so” is unclear and came across as poetic language. Just filler with no point to the sentence.

What is “spiritual sight”? Can you clarify this because I honestly have no idea what you mean by this.

I never implied that 100 years point was your only evidence of your faith. Not sure why you went there. I’ll appeal to the fair-mindedness of the readers to see if I implied that at all.

You referenced Jesus. My address to that topic is that there could have been a man called Jesus. That is not by any means out of the realm of reality. As well as that this man loved people. To love people is an expected outcome of everyone that is not mentally broken to not be able to do this; which is an extremely rare event when that happens, so I’ll choose to believe that he had the capacity to love. I do not believe that he had anymore special powers than any other human being that has existed in reality.

The expression of love is not debatable, it is an observed fact of the human experience, observed in reality. Every experience that you have been able to be aware of manifests in reality in some detectable manner. Otherwise, you’d never know that event or experience existed. Which is no different than describing a non-event or just nothing.

There is no “first person” in evolution. We are all slowly evolving, all the time. But I’m not an evolutionary biologist. Want more clarification on evolution, ask those scientists to go into it.

However you choose to express who you are to the rest of the world, I’ll believe that you believe that about yourself. I have no reason not to. So if you believe that you are sinful and need forgiveness, then fine. That’s true to your identity. It’s not true to mine or anyone else’s unless they declare that for themselves though. I believe that I am a good person. That’s true to me and as such, that is true to describing my identity and who I am.

Any claim about the observable reality is within the realm of science. Can you give me an example of something that is observable in reality that is outside the realm of science? I do not believe in a creator or supernatural realm through the application of the philosophical scientific approach to learning about reality. It is my experience that every single scientific investigation into an experience that someone claims to be able to detect was influenced by the supernatural, never in the history of human existence has the conclusion been that, yes that was evidence of supernaturalism there. So I would be only “faking it till I make it” to claim to believe in the supernatural. And I’d think any deity worth respecting would respect that approach more.

To the point of the process butterflies goes through is evidence of intelligent design, replace intelligent design with magic, and the statement still works correctly. “Intelligent design” is not an explanation for what is going on here. Please explain what you mean by intelligent design.

If you do not understand why I took a position on something, point out where you need clarification so that I can understand what I said and why it didn’t come across correctly. Just stating that you don’t understand something or are frustrated about something without explaining why doesn’t help me to understand how you communicate. I’m telling you how to communicate to me so that I can understand your points. So I’ll, once again, ask the fair-mindedness of the readers if it was unclear about my point on the use of belief and how it wasn’t helpful to me to understand what you meant by its use.

 

[rcwitness]

Atheism, as used by atheists, not theists, is the assertion that they have not been convinced that there is any supernaturalism. They have not been convinced that fairies, devils, gods, angles, magic, etc exist. They are NOT stating that they DO NOT EXIST. Do you understand the difference between, “This does not exist” and “I do not believe that this exists”? We are not making the positive claim that something exists or does not exists. We are stating that we do not believe or been convinced that your argument for the existence of something exists. That is the difference. Not knowing this fundamental identity just goes to show how little you have engaged atheists and only learned about them through other theists.

is this what all atheists believe? Is there such a unified atheist belief? I approached this discussion with the Webster’s definition. I’ve had an atheist tell me God does not exist.

I am not attempting to be hostile, only frustrated with the dialog of conversation with theists. They like to use belief as the same as trust, to have been convinced, to put faith into, and as a state of higher level of consciousness, or apparently now in this case, to represent wearing one’s religion on their sleeve… So the statement of “We recognize that belief is inevitable. Not only inevitable, but fashioned to be so” is unclear and came across as poetic language.

When I say “We recognize that belief is inevitable” it is in the context of our discussion (God). Whether you believe in God, or do not believe in God. I am sharing my belief and you are sharing yours. We means all of us.

What is “spiritual sight”? Can you clarify this because I honestly have no idea what you mean by this.Spiritual sight means seeing things that pertain to the Spirit. It is not a talent or something only a few people can do. I don’t need to be any particular level of intelligence. It is looking at the Spiritual aspect of life through the gift of faith. It is praying and believing in the Person we are praying to. It is accepting Scripture as a guide from above. It is placing morals above carnal instincts.

I never implied that 100 years point was your only evidence of your faith. Not sure why you went there.

I actually did, accidentally. That’s why I tried to acknowledge it.

You referenced Jesus. My address to that topic is that there could have been a man called Jesus.

I am not claiming any significance to His name. I am calling on His name because of who He is and what He did.

As well as that this man loved people. To love people is an expected outcome of everyone that is not mentally broken to not be able to do this… I do not believe that he had anymore special powers than any other human being that has existed in reality.

Do you believe many people had that amount of love? Have you pondered that love that He showed?

The expression of love is not debatable, it is an observed fact of the human experience, observed in reality. Every experience that you have been able to be aware of manifests in reality in some detectable manner. Otherwise, you’d never know that event or experience existed. Which is no different than describing a non-event or just nothing.

True love does manifest itself. But we are not always able to know what another person truly feels. There can be deception. And love can fade away, or people can be tested and reveal that their love is not so great.

There is no “first person” in evolution. We are all slowly evolving, all the time. But I’m not an evolutionary biologist. Want more clarification on evolution, ask those scientists to go into it.

There was no first human being? Is this a scientific fact?

Any claim about the observable reality is within the realm of science. Can you give me an example of something that is observable in reality that is outside the realm of science? I do not believe in a creator or supernatural realm through the application of the philosophical scientific approach to learning about reality. It is my experience that every single scientific investigation into an experience that someone claims to be able to detect was influenced by the supernatural, never in the history of human existence has the conclusion been that, yes that was evidence of supernaturalism there. So I would be only “faking it till I make it” to claim to believe in the supernatural. And I’d think any deity worth respecting would respect that approach more.

Are you saying that it’s a fact there has never been a supernatural miracle?

To the point of the process butterflies goes through is evidence of intelligent design, replace intelligent design with magic, and the statement still works correctly. Please explain what you mean by intelligent design.

Intelligent design means there is an intelligent designer who fashioned the design of a thing. The cycle of a butterfly seems so far away from random chance of matter interacting with matter. I am moved by its wonder and find it overwelmingly convincing that there is a creator at work.

If you do not understand why I took a position on something, point out where you need clarification so that I can understand what I said and why it didn’t come across correctly. Just stating that you don’t understand something or are frustrated about something without explaining why doesn’t help me to understand how you communicate.

Did I do that? I don’t remember getting frustrated.

I’m telling you how to communicate to me so that I can understand your points. So I’ll, once again, ask the fair-mindedness of the readers if it was unclear about my point on the use of belief and how it wasn’t helpful to me to understand what you meant by its use.

Hopefully you still don’t think I used belief inappropriately.​

 

[AnlytcPhil]

I trust that the scientists who study cosmology conclude that the Big Bang Theory is the current best model for how the universe came to be after the bang. What happened before that, no one knows. Your label of god is my label of “No one knows”, you’re just calling that cause a god. While that’s fine, i’ll call it bob. We’re still just labeling the concept of A comes before B, so there must have been an A. Fine I agree with you that there must have been an A. What that A is? No one knows. You can use logic to come to conclude that there must have been an A, but what that A is, well that’s where we have to stop if we’re going to be honest with ourselves. Well I have to stop because I demand more evidence than just philosophical arguments for something that manifests in reality. It’s like how we mathematically knew that gravity waves could exist, but we didn’t teach that they existed in reality until we ran the test this year and found them. That is when I would feel justified in teaching people about gravity waves. Religious people are teaching about the reality of gravity waves while the math was still on the board from yesterday.

You’re talking about something that some people can imagine, not “something that nobody can imagine”. Scientists can imagine what they talk about. Maybe we don’t have their education and experience, but we have reason to believe they can imagine what they talk about. And they’re people, humans. So some people can imagine all that science stuff. But nobody can do anything called “imagine God”. That’s because there is no concept of anything labeled “God” to imagine. People can imagine unicorns even though they don’t exist, and scientists can imagine quarks and string theory, but nobody can imagine anything labeled “God”. Pope Francis is a Jesuit priest. Jesuit priests, and Father Rolheiser all say “God is ineffable”. That means they believe “God” is a meaningful word, but they say “Humans are not able to imagine what it means”. Theological noncognitivists agree with them about that. But we theological noncognitivists can’t help but wonder why they say it means anything at all? We can’t see that it does. It’s not that we chose for it to be meaningless, or desired for it to be meaningless. No, we didn’t choose for it to be meaningless. Not at all. We just couldn’t imagine anything for “God” to refer to, and couldn’t get our brains to just assume that what’s meaningless to everybody, is not meaningless. That doesn’t make any sense. Wish it did. I’d love to live forever in bliss. Who wouldn’t?

 

[Picky_Picky]

You’re talking about something that some people can imagine, not “something that nobody can imagine”. Scientists can imagine what they talk about. Maybe we don’t have their education and experience, but we have reason to believe they can imagine what they talk about. And they’re people, humans. So some people can imagine all that science stuff. But nobody can do anything called “imagine God”. That’s because there is no concept of anything labeled “God” to imagine. People can imagine unicorns even though they don’t exist, and scientists can imagine quarks and string theory, but nobody can imagine anything labeled “God”. Pope Francis is a Jesuit priest. Jesuit priests, and Father Rolheiser all say “God is ineffable”. That means they believe “God” is a meaningful word, but they say “Humans are not able to imagine what it means”. Theological noncognitivists agree with them about that. But we theological noncognitivists can’t help but wonder why they say it means anything at all? We can’t see that it does. It’s not that we chose for it to be meaningless, or desired for it to be meaningless. No, we didn’t choose for it to be meaningless. Not at all. We just couldn’t imagine anything for “God” to refer to, and couldn’t get our brains to just assume that what’s meaningless to everybody, is not meaningless. That doesn’t make any sense. Wish it did. I’d love to live forever in bliss. Who wouldn’t?

It may be that some Christians can imagine something of God, without imagining all of God (because he is too vast, too complicated, or whatever). As a child I could easily imagine God: he was just like that old gentleman whose picture was on the wall of my Sunday school. Of course I knew really that old gentleman was General William Booth, but nonetheless I knew God looked just as wise and sad as him. And I could easily imagine Jesus: he was portrayed clearly enough by Holman Hunt.

The Archbishop of Canterbury often talks of his relationship with Christ. I would be surprised if in that relationship he didn’t see Christ’s face and hear his voice.

Like you I find much religious language meaningless, but it clearly carries meaning for those who use it. This is true of much of the language we use to describe our inner worlds. If someone says Beethoven’s late quartets are profound, could we be certain we were hearing a meaningful statement? What does it mean, except an intangible reflection of what may be seen as an inner truth?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I have fallen away from the Church for about a year and became very atheist. I regret this now. I have always known that God was real and his true church was none other then the Catholic Church. I am looking for some good arguments for the Catholic Church and arguments against Atheism. I use to know all of this but I’ve forgotten a lot of it living the atheist life style. If you know of any good Catholic books, articles, or videos please leave them here. Your own arguments or life experiences are also welcomed. Thank you.

Lenny-

Welcome home!

It would be easier to respond if you post one question per thread so that we can give you specific answers. I’ll be looking for your threads!

 

[Russell_SA]

You’re talking about something that some people can imagine, not “something that nobody can imagine”. Scientists can imagine what they talk about. Maybe we don’t have their education and experience, but we have reason to believe they can imagine what they talk about. And they’re people, humans. So some people can imagine all that science stuff. But nobody can do anything called “imagine God”. That’s because there is no concept of anything labeled “God” to imagine. People can imagine unicorns even though they don’t exist, and scientists can imagine quarks and string theory, but nobody can imagine anything labeled “God”. Pope Francis is a Jesuit priest. Jesuit priests, and Father Rolheiser all say “God is ineffable”. That means they believe “God” is a meaningful word, but they say “Humans are not able to imagine what it means”. Theological noncognitivists agree with them about that. But we theological noncognitivists can’t help but wonder why they say it means anything at all? We can’t see that it does. It’s not that we chose for it to be meaningless, or desired for it to be meaningless. No, we didn’t choose for it to be meaningless. Not at all. We just couldn’t imagine anything for “God” to refer to, and couldn’t get our brains to just assume that what’s meaningless to everybody, is not meaningless. That doesn’t make any sense. Wish it did. I’d love to live forever in bliss. Who wouldn’t?

You seem to be making my point. Labeling a concept that cant be understood beyond just the placeholder label is the same thing as calling what started the big bang as “A”, Well we gave that point a label, now what is it. No one knows, so you have to say that A is just the place holder from the reference point of B, the big bang in this case. B is what is used to point at A, but what is A, no one knows. Only the religious seem to give the A more attributes than just saying honestly, I don’t know because no one can know now.

 

[Russell_SA]

is this what all atheists believe? Is there such a unified atheist belief? I approached this discussion with the Webster’s definition. I’ve had an atheist tell me God does not exist.

The definition of atheism that I gave is the overall correct way to describe atheism within atheist groups. Some atheists will make the positive claim that a god does not exist, but that is going from a theistic discussion to a gnostic discussion. You could challenge them on why they are asserting that point. All you have to do is challenge them with how can you possibly know that? And then they’ll go into an argument from ignorance fallacy. The closest argument I’ve found for making that positive claim is that, you are justified in concluding there is no object A until we can find a way to distinguish the difference between the A being nothing more than an imagined concept in our heads and the A actually manifesting in reality in some detectable way. Because if something can not be detectable in reality, then it is no different than an imagined idea. Which is no different than the manifestation of “nothing” in the physical reality.

 

[Russell_SA]

I am not attempting to be hostile, only frustrated with the dialog of conversation with theists. They like to use belief as the same as trust, to have been convinced, to put faith into, and as a state of higher level of consciousness, or apparently now in this case, to represent wearing one’s religion on their sleeve… So the statement of “We recognize that belief is inevitable. Not only inevitable, but fashioned to be so” is unclear and came across as poetic language. When I say “We recognize that belief is inevitable” it is in the context of our discussion (God). Whether you believe in God, or do not believe in God. I am sharing my belief and you are sharing yours. We means all of us. What is “spiritual sight”? Can you clarify this because I honestly have no idea what you mean by this.

Spiritual sight means seeing things that pertain to the Spirit. It is not a talent or something only a few people can do. I don’t need to be any particular level of intelligence. It is looking at the Spiritual aspect of life through the gift of faith. It is praying and believing in the Person we are praying to. It is accepting Scripture as a guide from above. It is placing morals above carnal instincts.

I’m still confused with how you are using belief here. I think you mean that we all come to have beliefs about something, which I would use the word, “to have conclusions about something.” Which I agree with in this case. If you experience reality, then you will come to conclusions about those experiences. And we all are able to tell other people about our conclusions because it helps them to empathize with us as we are describing how we are interpreting these experiences.

What is the spirit to you? It’s been my experience that spirit gets used in place of consciousness.

 

[rcwitness]

I’m still confused with how you are using belief here. I think you mean that we all come to have beliefs about something, which I would use the word, “to have conclusions about something.” Which I agree with in this case. If you experience reality, then you will come to conclusions about those experiences. And we all are able to tell other people about our conclusions because it helps them to empathize with us as we are describing how we are interpreting these experiences.

What is the spirit to you? It’s been my experience that spirit gets used in place of consciousness.

Good question. I understand spirit to be a part of our being that is not restricted to our bodies. It’s who we are. Its the desires of who we are. But not necessarily the same desires which our body has. We are beings with body, spirit and soul.

Our Consciousness is our awareness and coherence.

Our conscience, is the natural faculty that guides our intentions and moral choices.

Belief, is yes, our conclusions. Conclusions about God are not without the use of reason, but not only reason, but conscience and faith. Faith is the supernatural gift to see things that pertain to the Spirit.

 

[Russell_SA]

As well as that this man loved people. To love people is an expected outcome of everyone that is not mentally broken to not be able to do this… I do not believe that he had anymore special powers than any other human being that has existed in reality.

Do you believe many people had that amount of love? Have you pondered that love that He showed?

I believe that any leader shows exaggerated qualities of humanity that make them stand out from everyone else. Such as higher ability to converse, to empathize, to have patience, etc. Lots of people, when moved by a cause, are willing to get themselves killed to move the message forward. Martyrdom is not that rare a concept. Leaders can love their followers and their cause but I don’t see how martyring himself addressed the issue he was trying to fix. Seems it would have been better if he stayed alive and continued to teach more and more people how to be a decent human being to each other, educating people and creating that passion for community so that it would become instilled in the identity of the governing institutions as what it means to be a part of this group. Like how we believe, to be american, is to be X,Y,Z that is taught in every school across the country.

 

[Russell_SA]

There is no “first person” in evolution. We are all slowly evolving, all the time. But I’m not an evolutionary biologist. Want more clarification on evolution, ask those scientists to go into it.

There was no first human being? Is this a scientific fact?

It is a logical conclusion based on the current scientific model of evolution. There never was a first of any specific creature. They are all in a slow state of evolving. To give an example, it seems that evolution deniers come across as believing that only every increment of 100 counts as a species and do not under stand all the changes that took place between 100 - 200, 300 to 400, and so on. The 100’s marks are when a biological evolution reached a point to where this entity could no longer create a viable offspring with a different entity, aka speciation. But I’m not qualified to talk about this topic, so I’ll just tell you what I understand about it so far, and that could be wrong. But I believe this example works correctly.

 

[Russell_SA]

Any claim about the observable reality is within the realm of science. Can you give me an example of something that is observable in reality that is outside the realm of science? I do not believe in a creator or supernatural realm through the application of the philosophical scientific approach to learning about reality. It is my experience that every single scientific investigation into an experience that someone claims to be able to detect was influenced by the supernatural, never in the history of human existence has the conclusion been that, yes that was evidence of supernaturalism there. So I would be only “faking it till I make it” to claim to believe in the supernatural. And I’d think any deity worth respecting would respect that approach more.

Are you saying that it’s a fact there has never been a supernatural miracle?

It is a fact that a supernatural miracle has never been confirmed through a scientific review. It’s the same thing as asking, “Are you saying that it’s a fact that there has never been sudo-medicine that actually works?” Well the thing about testing sudo-medicine and then finding out that it works, it becomes medicine. But this has never been confirmed with the claims that an event was due to supernatural causes. So since we can not tell the difference between an event that occurred was due to supernatural causes or not, we leave out the unneeded descriptor of “supernatural causation” as why that event occurred. It’s like saying 1 + 0 = 1, Just say 1=1, There’s no point in adding in the 0 at all. 0, nothing, and supernatural evidence come across as the same thing.

We have to have a way to detect the difference between event A and B. But so far, supernatural evidence does not appear to manifest in reality in any known detectable way, it is indistinguishable from not being there at all.

 

[Russell_SA]

To the point of the process butterflies goes through is evidence of intelligent design, replace intelligent design with magic, and the statement still works correctly. Please explain what you mean by intelligent design.

Intelligent design means there is an intelligent designer who fashioned the design of a thing. The cycle of a butterfly seems so far away from random chance of matter interacting with matter. I am moved by its wonder and find it overwelmingly convincing that there is a creator at work.

How do you determine the difference between a designed object and a nondesigned object? In this reality, scientists compare natural to non-natural. Biological processes are natural vs building a road. Not naturally occurring. Also, how complex of a process does it have to be before it looks to be not natural? 3 steps? 5 steps? 200,000 steps? The sand that cascades through an hour glass creates a beautiful cone, but the physics allow for that final design and it started off with just the first fall of a grain of sand, the rest followed. Overtime, you get a complex structure of the cone. No others ever alike. Same with snow flakes. Beautiful, but natural. So you have to have a comparison of designed vs not-designed to know if something was designed or not. Since we only have one reference point of this reality, we have nothing to compare it to, to see if it shows design or not. Sounds like you are using design as a subjective term, like complex. Complex to someone may not be complex to someone else. But if you compare complexity by the number of process it took, the when does it change from simple to complex? Natural to designed?

 

[Russell_SA]

Good question. I understand spirit to be a part of our being that is not restricted to our bodies. It’s who we are. Its the desires of who we are. But not necessarily the same desires which our body has. We are beings with body, spirit and soul.

Our Consciousness is our awareness and coherence.

Our conscience, is the natural faculty that guides our intentions and moral choices.

Belief, is yes, our conclusions. Conclusions about God are not without the use of reason, but not only reason, but conscience and faith. Faith is the supernatural gift to see things that pertain to the Spirit.

It sounds like you are using spirit as I would use personality.

But what is a spirit. IE: Car A has an engine and a blibit-bloby while car B has only an engine. Car A and B are indistinguishable from each other in any detectable way in reality. So how do you know that car A has a blibity-bloby at all? And to go on and say the blibity-bloby has x,y,z characteristics when I can’t see how the blibity-bloby exists at all to begin with.

 

[rcwitness]

Just for sake of being clear of the knowledge of those of you who are participating in this thread, who do not believe in the God of the Catholic faith (Russell_SA, AnlytcPhil, Picky Picky).

Are you aware of the Gospel of Christianity, the events of Christmas and Easter as related in Scripture and understood by the Church?

I want to make sure, since it was suggested in the thread, that most atheists do not know this God, and are actually rejecting a someone they are unaware of.

 

[jcrichton]

So you can run a test to determine the difference between the two objects. How do you do that with supernatural claims and reality claims assigned to the same event? Culture A and Culture B both are looking at the chair and neither one can come up with a test that distinguishes the two claims, so they are both justified in believing that event 1 is a chair and the other believing it is a fork. All they are doing is using a different label for the same observation. However, being of culture B, I am claiming a natural explanation for the event because the event manifested in reality while culture A is claiming a supernatural explanation without having any tests to conclude that supernaturalism is any different than nothing.

Using vocabulary to describe your experience of an event is not the same as lying about the event. That is the definition of false advertising that you are describing. That would be the reference I suggested before where someone is sitting in a chair and lying to everyone by saying its a fork.

Hi, Russell!
…I think this is where the turn of events, well… turn… your supposition must, by default, brings us to a place and time where these two cultures are completely oblivious to what a sitting artifact looks like and to its function…

I return to the Shroud of Turin… the various studies have concluded, amongst other things, that: a) it is not made by any means of technology as we know it; b) it is not a picture, drawing or stain; c) it contains no paint, oil, resin…; d) it cannot conceive how any artist/craftsman could have created such artifact; e) the image is three dimensional, depicting both the front and back of a man; e) there exists enough definition to suggest that the person depicted would have experience crucifixion, with all the gore that it entails… in spite of all the findings (and we must agree at least on the capacity of the investigators–comprehension and vocabulary…) those who reject the supernatural continue to hold the “opinion” that it is not supernatural.

Conversely, culture A and B would study both the chair and the fork and, even if they do not fully converge on the full understanding of these artifacts, they would put the chair to some sort of “comfort” use and use the fork as some sort of tool–regardless of the evolution of their culture (enhanced knowledge/vocabulary) they would adapt the new artifacts into their culture with their own respective understanding and vocabulary.

The question is, without preexisting bias, if these cultures (A and B) were to be brought to par with present knowledge and understanding (science, tech, math…) would they reject the supernatural when it hits them on their face?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[rcwitness]

It sounds like you are using spirit as I would use personality.

But what is a spirit. IE: Car A has an engine and a blibit-bloby while car B has only an engine. Car A and B are indistinguishable from each other in any detectable way in reality. So how do you know that car A has a blibity-bloby at all? And to go on and say the blibity-bloby has x,y,z characteristics when I can’t see how the blibity-bloby exists at all to begin with.

What is a blibity-bloby?