Are you an atheist?

[dan-cat]

It may well do. As has already been said the universe is a vast place and we have not explored much of it yet so we just don't know yet. Is there a limit? probably not given sufficient time.

Could I link in to my use of 'arrogance' here?

Just because man covers a certain amount of space/time in exploration what makes him think that he has the tools (ie human brain) to perceive the required evidence to reach the correct conclusion?

 

[Mike375]

It may well do. As has already been said the universe is a vast place and we have not explored much of it yet so we just don't know yet. Is there a limit? probably not given sufficient time.

Well given there has been billions and billions of years and across billions and trillions "territory" could a being or beings be far enough above us to become supernatural.

 

[Rabbie]

Alisa

I can only base the following on Ausralia.

In the professions atheism is much less common with the highest earners. For example, medical specialists that are staff specialist are far more likley to be atheist than the private practice specialists. Yet the highest academic qualifications are usually found with the private practice specialists.

It is rare to find atheism in high earning sales and especially where the sales are canvassed for.

Atheism is most common in occupations that are salaried and when the person has a degree of academic qualications and doubly so if those qualifations don't provide a lot of opportunities for higher incomes.

I suspect the reason for the above is when a person pushes very hard they simply turn up more things that seem to be unexplainable. They often go to the brink of disaster but some helping hand from nowwhere just seems to catch them in time.

Is it possible that Atheists in for example Sales tend to hide their atheism for fear of putting up barriers between them and potential buyers. After all many people who claim to be members of organised religions do not make much public show of their beliefs so it is relatively easy not to advertise your position in public.

 

[Alisa]

Mike, interesting correlations you point out.
Although I have to say, I think it is much more to the point that if you are born to Christian parents you will probably be a christian and think that the Islamic god is false, and if you are born to Muslim parents, you will probably be a muslim and think that the christian god is false. If there is a god, everyone agrees that there is only one. After all, I don't hear anyone claiming that the universe was created in a partnership between two gods, who later decided to hate eachother and unleash different parts of the human population on each other to carry out their hatred . . .

Well given there has been billions and billions of years and across billions and trillions "territory" could a being or beings be far enough above us to become supernatural.

The "becoming" you speak of is a natural process, and can only result in natural beings. There is no transition whereby if you evolve enough you become supernatural.

 

[Rabbie]

Well given there has been billions and billions of years and across billions and trillions "territory" could a being or beings be far enough above us to become supernatural.

In my opinion any being that has advance for above us would still be natural and not supernatural even though their technology might look to us to be supernatural. This is exactly the same as our advanced technology might appear to be supernatural to a person two hundred years ago

 

[dan-cat]

The "becoming" you speak of is a natural process, and can only result in natural beings. There is no transition whereby if you evolve enough you become supernatural.

But what gives us the authority to say this when we are so far below this state. As a caveman is to Silicon valley.

 

[Rabbie]

Could I link in to my use of 'arrogance' here?

Just because man covers a certain amount of space/time in exploration what makes him think that he has the tools (ie human brain) to perceive the required evidence to reach the correct conclusion?

I am sure that if he has problems Woman will be only too happy to help. Seriously human progress can be seen as a series of wrong conclusion sthat have been successively corrected and refined as we get closer to the truth.

 

[Alisa]

As a caveman is to Silicon valley.

You just answered your own question. Supernatural is a name that humans call things we don't understand. In your example, a caveman in silicon valley would surely think that computers, etc. are supernatural. But that doesn't mean they ARE supernatural. In fact, historically, there are many many instances in which things that were first thought to be supernatural turned out not to be. In contrast, there has never once been a non-supernatural phenomenon, i.e., somthing we CAN explain with science, that later turned out to be supernatural.

 

[Rabbie]

But what gives us the authority to say this when we are so far below this state. As a caveman is to Silicon valley.

Do we actually need authority for this. If so who from?

 

[Mike375]

The "becoming" you speak of is a natural process, and can only result in natural beings. There is no transition whereby if you evolve enough you become supernatural.

You don't know that.

As I have said to Rabbie, just consider the huge jump between us and chimps and they are supposed to be 97% of DNA likeness.

 

[Rich]

If so who from?

God.......................

 

[dan-cat]

In contrast, there has never once been a non-supernatural phenomenon, i.e., somthing we CAN explain with science, that later turned out to be supernatural.

But this is my point. Why would they ever turn out to be supernatural to us if we don't have the required tools to perceive the supernatural? The phenomena you refer to just remains unexplained and as we have all admitted the gulf between explained and unexplained is vast.

In short, what makes us think that the human brain is the tool for the job?

 

[Rich]

You don't know that.

As I have said to Rabbie, just consider the huge jump between us and chimps and they are supposed to be 97% of DNA likeness.

So we are supernatural then

 

[Alisa]

You don't know that.

Again, I am supposed to prove the negative? There is no evidence anywhere that shows that natural eventually progresses to supernatural given enough time. In fact, there is no evidence that the supernatural exists. Period. The only evidence we have is that humans are too ignorant to explain everything in the universe, or the origin of the universe. That is not evidence that can be used to support the existence of the supernatural.

 

[ColinEssex]

Do we really care?

If some believe in a fairy tale about a god type person - so what?

If others think it's all bo**ocks - so what?

The problem occurs when one god type believer thinks his/her god is better than another, therefore the 'lesser' god person must be killed.
So, being that most religious people don't accept any other faith as being 'bona fide' - the chances of religious conflict are very high indeed.
No - I'm wrong - the chances of conflict under a 'religious' banner are very high indeed.

The Yanks should build a mosque on ground zero - that'll stop another 11/9 attempt. Or maybe build a runway?

Col

 

[Mike375]

In contrast, there has never once been a non-supernatural phenomenon, i.e., somthing we CAN explain with science, that later turned out to be supernatural.

But that is because it is never admitted. Also, just because something was done by a supernatural does not mean it can't be explained by science.

 

[dan-cat]

Do we actually need authority for this. If so who from?

If we are sticking to the model that we require evidence to believe in something, then yes. If not then we enter the realms of faith

 

[Alisa]

But that is because it is never admitted.

Really? Just what are you refering to here? What is it that science claims to be able to explain, that is actually supernatural?

Also, just because something was done by a supernatural does not mean it can't be explained by science.

Then what exactly is your definition of supernatural?
I guess I should have asked that question a long time ago, it might of saved some pages on this forum.

 

[Mike375]

So we are supernatural then

Relative to ants etc., yes.

The ant's instincts, senses tell it that there is no rain about and so no need venture out and collect food. Then a man turns up with a firehose.

 

[Mike375]

Again, I am supposed to prove the negative? There is no evidence anywhere that shows that natural eventually progresses to supernatural given enough time. In fact, there is no evidence that the supernatural exists. Period. The only evidence we have is that humans are too ignorant to explain everything in the universe, or the origin of the universe. That is not evidence that can be used to support the existence of the supernatural.

Just how much of the universe have you visited.