ATHEIST definition changed
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-06-2017, 04:18 PM
RE: ATHEIST definition changed
(16-06-2017 01:58 PM)Goshine Wrote:  I cannot think of anything else defined by what it lacks while also not being the opposite of something else. Maybe you can?

Sounds like a riddle.

Darkness?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thoreauvian's post
16-06-2017, 10:16 PM
RE: ATHEIST definition changed
(16-06-2017 03:08 PM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  
(11-06-2017 11:20 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  Pretty much, yeah! It's when people refuse to come out and admit this that they tangle themselves in knots trying to define this absurd concept.

And what is magic, really? It's just something that's currently impossible to explain. Very subjective. Lots of things would have been magic to ancient man, hence the nonsense written in their books.
Wrong. Magic is just magic. Technology we can't yet understand appears to be magic, but isn't.

What do you mean it's just magic? How would you define it?

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2017, 11:17 PM
RE: ATHEIST definition changed
The accuracy of the new definition is easy to see.

Atheist is a 2 part word. Theist means roughly with a god. Put the "a" in front of it and it means without a god.

Some atheists believe that there is no god, meets both definitions.

Some atheists have never bothered to consider in any depth whether or not there is or isn't a god, could be someone raised in a vacuum. That person may not believe that there is no god but doesn't believe that there is a god. This person would fit the new definition but not the old one.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2017, 11:50 PM
RE: ATHEIST definition changed
(16-06-2017 11:17 PM)psybj Wrote:  ...
Atheist is a 2 part word. Theist means roughly with a god. Put the "a" in front of it and it means without a god.
...

Not that it adds much to the conversation but etymologically it's a little deeper than that.

You can see it as a-theism and/or athe-ism (atheos-ism).

I dunno... it's all Greek to me.

Angel

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-06-2017, 12:10 AM
RE: ATHEIST definition changed
(16-06-2017 10:16 PM)Robvalue Wrote:  
(16-06-2017 03:08 PM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  Wrong. Magic is just magic. Technology we can't yet understand appears to be magic, but isn't.

What do you mean it's just magic? How would you define it?

Magic is supernatural. Advanced technology is natural (as opposed to supernatural), even if not understood.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-06-2017, 01:18 AM (This post was last modified: 17-06-2017 01:27 AM by Robvalue.)
RE: ATHEIST definition changed
What is natural, and then what's supernatural?

Not trying to be a dick, it's just I've never heard these things defined coherently, without some arbitrary divide or equivocation.

I'd be happy, personally, to say that "magic" is just some weird stuff that goes on in stories and isn't meant to be real. Harnessing the elements directly, or something.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-06-2017, 01:39 AM
RE: ATHEIST definition changed
(17-06-2017 01:18 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  What is natural, and then what's supernatural?

Not trying to be a dick, it's just I've never heard these things defined coherently, without some arbitrary divide or equivocation.

I'd be happy, personally, to say that "magic" is just some weird stuff that goes on in stories and isn't meant to be real. Harnessing the elements directly, or something.

Supernatural is beyond nature, outside of observable reality. In many ways, the supernatural effectively doesn't exist; or if it does, we have no way of knowing it. If something operates outside of reality, we cannot know about it. If that thing interacts with our reality, it does in principle becomes observable, and thus becomes a part of nature.

So if magic exists, we cannot know, because that which exists outside of nature or observable reality cannot be known. If something either cannot interact with reality, or does not interact, it is immune to observation and thus unknowable. Such ephemeral things with no basis in evidence have no grounds for a positive belief in their existence, as they're quite literally the least probable explanation for any given observable phenomena.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-06-2017, 01:48 AM (This post was last modified: 17-06-2017 01:51 AM by Robvalue.)
RE: ATHEIST definition changed
So..

Something that is magic is something that exists in another reality to ours? (Saying "outside all reality/the universe" is an oxymoron). Also, observable by who? If we're already talking about the possibility of different realities interacting, observation should never be out of the question either, should it?

That's the only sensible definition I've ever heard for supernatural, but it just makes it subjective. We're also then supernatural in respect to that other reality. It does allow for it be an actual real thing, though.

That's not what people mean however if someone/something "does magic". I agree that you can't define anything going on within our reality as "magic" without defining it out of existence or drawing arbitrary divides. It's a placeholder for "not understood". You could try to say, I suppose, that magic somehow draws on things from outside our reality. But for all we know, everything that happens here draws on some other reality (say we're a simulation).

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-06-2017, 01:57 AM
RE: ATHEIST definition changed
PS:

At what point do you draw a line and say "this is a reality", if you're then going to say that it's possible that there could be interaction with "another reality"? Isn't that just arbitrary? Don't the two together then just make up a/the "reality"?

To me, the only useful definition seems to be that realities are entirely self-contained. It could make sense, however, that one reality could indirectly affect another, if a reality is a side effect (manifestation) of a process in another reality (again, I'm thinking simulations).

I should make another thread about this Tongue

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-06-2017, 02:15 AM
RE: ATHEIST definition changed
(17-06-2017 01:48 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  So..

Something that is magic is something that exists in another reality to ours? (Saying "outside all reality/the universe" is an oxymoron). Also, observable by who? If we're already talking about the possibility of different realities interacting, observation should never be out of the question either, should it?

That's the only sensible definition I've ever heard for supernatural, but it just makes it subjective. We're also then supernatural in respect to that other reality. It does allow for it be an actual real thing, though.

That's not what people mean however if someone/something "does magic". I agree that you can't define anything going on within our reality as "magic" without defining it out of existence or drawing arbitrary divides. It's a placeholder for "not understood". You could try to say, I suppose, that magic somehow draws on things from outside our reality. But for all we know, everything that happens here draws on some other reality (say we're a simulation).

If it follows the laws of nature, it's natural. If it breaks the laws, either we don't understand the laws enough, or it's supernatural. If you were to just 'magic' into existence an apple? Well, either you have broken the laws of conservation of mater, or there are exceptions we don't understand. Now it could be that apple, or the matter and energy needed to create it, have crossed into our reality from outside of it; in which case that apple once here now behaves according to our reality, but it either bent or broke a natural law to get there.

Whether not understood or beyond our understanding, magic is supernatural. Seeing as how a lot of the portrayals of magic overtly tread upon how reality works (indeed, one could say that is its very appeal), being supernatural is a pretty good working definition.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: