Teaser question...

[InterestedAtheist]

I'm not here to play by the atheist rule set. For most atheists, it doesn't really matter what answer you give them because they are not satisfied with the answers you give them anyways.

Well, I think this has gone as far as it needs to. TC, welcome to the Apologetics Forum. I wish you the best in your quest to enlighten us. No doubt we shall be speaking more in good time, but there doesn't seem to be much more to say now.

 

[All Becomes New]

I have no reason to suspect that it was.

Firstly, "god did it" is not an explanation at all. You may as well be invoking magic.

Secondly, this has already been explained to you, but here it is again:

Correct. Scientifically, the answer is "I don't know" because belief in God requires faith. We can get into the discussion on what faith actually entails, but suffice to say, it means "conviction of the truth" and it is experienced as God proving Himself to you. That is why I don't blame honest atheists who say they never experienced God as the reason for their unbelief. The problem is that most people experience things in their lives that are completely unexplainable. So things that have no explanation usually mean something supernatural has happened. Dishonest atheists, even when they experience something unexplainable, deny it was anything supernatural at all. I've had atheists tell me they experienced hell in a dream, but they didn't think it meant God existed even though it was significant enough for them to bring up in a conversation about spiritual things or spirituality in general.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

So things that have no explanation usually mean something supernatural has happened.

If we had actually thought like that, we never would have gotten anywhere as a species. Every single instance of a once unexplained phenomena from our history - weather, diseases, biological mechanisms, natural disasters, mental illness, etc - had at one time been ascribed a "supernatural" explanation. And in every single instance, that "supernatural" explanation was supplanted by a natural one, revealing new information in turn, each time.

Conversely, you cannot name a single instance from history in which an established natural explanation was supplanted by a "supernatural" one. That is because "supernatural" is not an explanation at all. It is a vacuous non-concept. It has never even been coherently, positively, and non-superfluously defined.

"I don't know, therefor it must have been magic" is extremely poor reasoning. I suggest you cease advocating for it, if you care to be taken seriously.

 

[All Becomes New]

Well, I think this has gone as far as it needs to. TC, welcome to the Apologetics Forum. I wish you the best in your quest to enlighten us. No doubt we shall be speaking more in good time, but there doesn't seem to be much more to say now.

If I seem brash, it is because I have bad experiences with atheists in the past, such as them not acknowledging when I have made a valid point.

I don't actually think I am a particularly good debater. I just try and call it like I see it and atheists tend to just criticize everything. To this point I would say atheists value criticism to somewhat unhealthy levels. It has to do with the scientific method, I would guess, in that it aims to disprove your own hypothesis. It seems atheists have taken this principle and applied it to their daily lives. So while they might be scientifically minded, it's quite annoying to discuss things with them because they never act like you have anything of value to offer. In short, I am disgruntled by atheists because they don't act like you are a person, but instead treat you like a pet project or that you are an argument itself. I actually get it though. They think they are doing a Good thing by critiquing everything all in the pursuit of knowledge. They think the more you critique, the more falsehoods you can disprove and that over time this leads to what is remaining as Truth. The problem with this mindset is that it neglects every arriving at any sort of truth at all, but instead just pushes back arriving at truth indefinitely.

Personally, I see that there are 3 ways to approach information:

1. See what is True
2. See what is False
3. See what you want to see

Atheists usually fall into the second category. I find myself wanting to be in the first category. That's why I like making positive arguments rather than negative ones. If you only focus on what is False, then you never know what is True. But if you focus on what is True, then you will by default know what is False.

 

[All Becomes New]

If we had actually thought like that, we never would have gotten anywhere as a species. Every single instance of a once unexplained phenomena from our history - weather, diseases, biological mechanisms, natural disasters, mental illness, etc - had at one time been ascribed a "supernatural" explanation. And in every single instance, that "supernatural" explanation was supplanted by a natural one, revealing new information in turn, each time.

Conversely, you cannot name a single instance from history in which an established natural explanation was supplanted by a "supernatural" one. That is because "supernatural" is not an explanation at all. It is a vacuous non-concept. It has never even been coherently, positively, and non-superfluously defined.

"I don't know, therefor it must have been magic" is extremely poor reasoning. I suggest you cease advocating for it, if you care to be taken seriously.

Sure. What do you make of documented miracles? Those are instances where there is no logical explanation on why something happened, such as a person being healed after being prayed for. Even in the case that there was a non-supernatural reason why the person was healed, it was the prayer that was the catalyst for the healing. Whether that has to do with advanced mind states of eliciting a "power of mind" in the effect of healing the person, there are some situations where we don't have a scientific explanation for why the healing occurred. If you are not comfortable with calling it something supernatural, then I suggest you instead call it an act of God as an umbrella term for things that have no explanation. In the medical field, doctors are not allowed to call something a miracle. In the case that there was a miracle, often times doctors just don't know what to call it at all. They are left stumped because they are not allowed to call it a miracle. Ever wonder why they are not allowed to call something miraculous? Because it's not scientific, that is why. Science doesn't/can't account for the miraculous because if they did, it would throw off science as a whole since science is about natural phenomenon of a predictable nature. Things that don't fit this paradigm are not deemed scientific. To me, this sounds more like a problem of the limitations of science rather than the idea that supernatural things don't happen. Supernatural things happen, but science has nothing to say about it. That's a fact.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Sure. What do you make of documented miracles?

I don't make anything of them, because I don't grant that they are "miracles" in the first place. I don't even grant that you have a positive, coherent, and non-superfluous definition of "supernatural", let alone a means of reliably determining when you've observed something "supernatural".

Once again, even granting that something unknown happened, "I don't know what happened, therefor it must have been magic" is not a valid line of reasoning.

This is why I advocate for critical thinking classes to be taught as part of standard curriculum. No adult should need to have this explained to them.

Supernatural things happen, but science has nothing to say about it. That's a fact.

No, that's an assertion.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

If I seem brash, it is because I have bad experiences with atheists in the past, such as them not acknowledging when I have made a valid point.

I don't actually think I am a particularly good debater. I just try and call it like I see it and atheists tend to just criticize everything. To this point I would say atheists value criticism to somewhat unhealthy levels. It has to do with the scientific method, I would guess, in that it aims to disprove your own hypothesis. It seems atheists have taken this principle and applied it to their daily lives. So while they might be scientifically minded, it's quite annoying to discuss things with them because they never act like you have anything of value to offer. In short, I am disgruntled by atheists because they don't act like you are a person, but instead treat you like a pet project or that you are an argument itself. I actually get it though. They think they are doing a Good thing by critiquing everything all in the pursuit of knowledge. They think the more you critique, the more falsehoods you can disprove and that over time this leads to what is remaining as Truth. The problem with this mindset is that it neglects every arriving at any sort of truth at all, but instead just pushes back arriving at truth indefinitely.

Personally, I see that there are 3 ways to approach information:

1. See what is True
2. See what is False
3. See what you want to see

Atheists usually fall into the second category. I find myself wanting to be in the first category. That's why I like making positive arguments rather than negative ones. If you only focus on what is False, then you never know what is True. But if you focus on what is True, then you will by default know what is False.

I'm sorry to hear you've had bad experiences with atheists before.

Yes, atheists generally do argue by pointing out mistakes. This is because atheism itself is a mindset of negation. This is a good and appropriate thing. It doesn't mean that atheists are cold, heartless, negative or bad. It means, quite simply that when an atheist is asked, "Do you believe in God?" their answer is no.

Atheists are not the ones who are making claims here. The Christians are. It is the Christians who say, "God exists," and the atheists reply, "Really? What evidence have you?" This, again, is the right and proper way to behave. You believe something that seems untrue to me? Well, why do you believe it? Tell me your reasons, and I shall see if they are valid.

So yes. Atheists make "negative" arguments, because it is their job to evaluate the claims of theists. This is as it should be. It doesn't mean that atheists aren't interested, concerned and actively involved in other positive ventures. It's just that these don't come into the conversation when they are speaking in the role of atheists.

 

[All Becomes New]

I don't make anything of them, because I don't grant that they are "miracles" in the first place. I don't even grant that you have a positive, coherent, and non-superfluous definition of "supernatural", let alone a means of reliably determining when you've observed something "supernatural".

Once again, even granting that something unknown happened, "I don't know what happened, therefor it must have been magic" is not a valid line of reasoning.

This is why I advocate for critical thinking classes to be taught as part of standard curriculum. No adult should need to have this explained to them.

No, that's an assertion.

I'll give you my definition of supernatural and I'll let you decide if it is a "positive, coherent, and non-superfluous definition"

Supernatural:

1. An occurrence that defies the rules of logic or does not adhere to the laws of nature or is otherwise not understood to fit into those categories.
2. Something that does not fit into an explanation of the scientific paradigm.
3. Something that does not have any reasonable explanation apart from paranormal or unnatural phenomenon as it pertains to physical reality or behavior.

Don't bother trying to look that up, I came up with it just now.

I am not arguing for magic. I am arguing that some things happen that our current understanding of things in the rational world cannot account for. I gave the example of the possibility that a supernatural occurrence could be something like someone getting healed miraculously. How the person was healed does not matter. What matters is that it was unexplainable by our current understanding of the known universe. I even went so far as to say that the person could have been healed by natural means, but that the means in which the person was healed is unexplainable by doctors and physicians. Further, these things do happen. To say unexplainable things never happen is to bury your head in the sand to a special reality about the known universe. For all I know, faith is a manifestation of a property of the natural universe that actually works within natural phenomena but is not understood in any kind of rational capacity we have at this time.

 

[All Becomes New]

This is a good and appropriate thing.

I beg to differ. I think this kind of thinking is incredibly destructive to society as a whole.

It doesn't mean that atheists are cold, heartless, negative or bad. It means, quite simply that when an atheist is asked, "Do you believe in God?" their answer is no.

And I would say the implications of that is that you end up with a bunch of people who put arguments ahead of the value of human beings in general.

Atheists are not the ones who are making claims here. The Christians are. It is the Christians who say, "God exists," and the atheists reply, "Really? What evidence have you?" This, again, is the right and proper way to behave. You believe something that seems untrue to me? Well, why do you believe it? Tell me your reasons, and I shall see if they are valid.

People throughout the history of humanity have pretty much always believed in a god in some way, shape, or form. Atheism is a relatively new development for humans. An atheist will argue that things naturally progress towards more and more rationalism, but the problem is that rationalism can't develop itself it has to be developed by some outside metric. Further, there is not sufficient evidence to me that rationality is actually increasing. Technology is increasing, but I think it is doubtful that people today are any more rational then they have been at any other point in history as far as the history of humanity is concerned. I think a logical mistep that progressives often make is that humanity as a whole has actually changed in a significant way over the course of about 10,00 years. More to the point, our genetics have probably changed very very little in that amount of time. An atheist would argue that we learn gradually over time, but I would point out there is no way for us to develop the capacity to learn without having some capacity to learn from the start. So while the progression of humanity learning over time is a fact, it is unclear to me the means to which humanity has the capacity to learn if at one point there was not that capacity there. So the question really becomes at what point did humanity gain the capacity to learn from one generation to another. To which I would answer it had nothing to do with humanity itself at all but was due to factors completely beyond the control of humans. Naturally, my explanation is that God provided the means for our capacity to think rationally and to learn from one generation to another. This can't be explained by natural means without invoking some form of the fine tuning argument.

So yes. Atheists make "negative" arguments, because it is their job to evaluate the claims of theists. This is as it should be. It doesn't mean that atheists aren't interested, concerned and actively involved in other positive ventures. It's just that these don't come into the conversation when they are speaking in the role of atheists.

The problem is that they do very little observable evaluating at all but instead seem to be content to spit out answers from their favorite database on how to debunk a Christians argument. Personally, I find it sad and pathetic if my suspicion of atheists is correct and they don't actually critically assess the arguments of a theist at all but instead just read what the theist says and then go to look up the answers on how to respond to a theist who makes such and such argument. I find that sort of way to approach discussions intellectually lazy and doesn't actually require much critical thinking at all. It's essentially the same as copying your classmates answers for homework.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I'll give you my definition of supernatural and I'll let you decide if it is a "positive, coherent, and non-superfluous definition"

Supernatural:

1. An occurrence that defies the rules of logic or does not adhere to the laws of nature or is otherwise not understood to fit into those categories.

You can stop right there. "Not understood to fit into those categories" is literally just another way of saying "I can't explain it, therefor it must be magic".

Also, what is the methodology behind reliably determining whether or not something actually "defies the rules of logic or does not adhere to the laws of nature"? Not apparently, but actually. What if you're just someone who sucks at using logic, or is scientifically ignorant, so a logical or scientific explanation might not occur to you? Or, suppose you are scientifically literate - what means can you use to reliably determine that you are not merely witnessing some as of yet undiscovered natural phenomenon, or advanced technology?

I am not arguing for magic.

There is no meaningful distinction between the "supernatural" you are arguing for, and magic. I know you don't like the word, because of its association with fantasy and fairy tales, but that's your problem. You could use exactly the same faulty reasoning you're using right now to argue for fairies, spirits, and magic spells, and it would be exactly as fallacious.

Further, these things do happen. To say unexplainable things never happen is to bury your head in the sand

You're confused.

Unexplained things happen all the time. If you want to argue that they are categorically unexplainable, that's something quite different. The burden of proof is yours. If all you have in response is an argument from ignorance - "I can't find an explanation, therefor it must be supernatural" - you lose.

 

[All Becomes New]

You can stop right there. "Not understood to fit into those categories" is literally just another way of saying "I can't explain it, therefor it must be magic".

If you would have understood the definition I gave, you would have seen my definition makes sense technically. Let's try this: What would be your definition of supernatural?

Also, what is the methodology behind reliably determining whether or not something actually "defies the rules of logic or does not adhere to the laws of nature"? Not apparently, but actually. What if you're just someone who sucks at using logic, or is scientifically ignorant, so a logical or scientific explanation might not occur to you? Or, suppose you are scientifically literate - what means can you use to reliably determine that you are not merely witnessing some as of yet undiscovered natural phenomenon, or advanced technology?

If you would have understood my last paragraph, you would not be saying this.

There is no meaningful distinction between the "supernatural" you are arguing for, and magic. I know you don't like the word, because of its association with fantasy and fairy tales, but that's your problem. You could use exactly the same faulty reasoning you're using right now to argue for fairies, spirits, and magic spells, and it would be exactly as fallacious.

If you would have understood my definition of supernatural, you would not be saying this.

You're confused.

You don't understand what I have written.

Unexplained things happen all the time. If you want to argue that they are categorically unexplainable, that's something quite different. The burden of proof is yours. If all you have in response is an argument from ignorance - "I can't find an explanation, therefor it must be supernatural" - you lose.

You have a problem with the word supernatural. As seen from your first paragraph, you have assumed the definition is incorrect due to it containing a definition of the word supernatural. Would you rather the word supernatural or the definition I gave of it not exist? Well, it does, so decide what you are going to do with it rather than saying it doesn't make logical sense.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

If you would have understood the definition I gave

I did. Your definition is predicated on an argument from ignorance fallacy.

If you would have understood my last paragraph, you would not be saying this.

None of this answers for your complete lack of methodology. You have provided no means of determining whether or not something actually "defies logical or scientific explanation", rather than just apparently. Your definition is worthless without this.

Also, if what you're calling "supernatural" is just an aspect of the natural world that has yet to be discovered and explained, then it's a superfluous concept. All you need to do is expand your understanding of what is natural, to include that thing. Actually, that is precisely what has happened in every instance in history, in which a phenomenon previously attributed to the "supernatural" was found to have a natural explanation.

Let's try this: What would be your definition of supernatural?

I don't think it has one, outside of its use as a device in works of fiction. It's a vacuous non-concept.

That's irrelevant though. The burden is yours to provide a workable definition.

You don't understand what I have written.

You don't appear to understand what you've written. Your definition is completely superfluous at best, and unworkable at worst.

You have a problem with the word supernatural.

Nope. You do.

I have no aversion to the word "supernatural". I enjoy works of fantasy and supernatural horror.

You, however, apparently need the concept to exist, in order to make sense of your worldview. But you can't even positively and coherently define it, let alone provide a means by which information about it can be reliably gleaned.

All of this is your problem. Not mine.

 

[All Becomes New]

I did. Your definition is predicated on an argument from ignorance fallacy.

No, in your view the concept of my definition is an argument from ignorance fallacy, not the definition itself.

None of this answers for your complete lack of methodology. You have provided no means of determining whether or not something actually "defies logical or scientific explanation", rather than just apparently. Your definition is worthless without this.

My definition defines what it supposed to. You have a problem with the concept of supernatural. And to boot, when I try and meet you half way, you think what I say is meaningless. This is exactly the kind of problem I have with atheists all the time. You bend over backwards for them, and they basically just spit in your face. I think you seriously lack the value of a pragmatic definition for things. There was nothing wrong with the definition I gave except to say you don't like the idea of the concept of my definition in the first place existing in the real world. It looks to me like you should probably slow down and try and dissect what it is that I have written for logical consistency in what the definition of supernatural might entail and then get back to me. Your answer is basically that there shouldn't be a definition of supernatural at all because the idea is not consistent with the known universe. What's more is that you actually have the gall to fault me for coming up with a definition at all when that's basically exactly what you wanted me to do. So then I did it and you didn't like it.

Also, if what you're calling "supernatural" is just an aspect of the natural world that has yet to be discovered and explained, then it's a superfluous concept. All you need to do is expand your understanding of what is natural, to include that thing. Actually, that is precisely what has happened in every instance in history, in which a phenomenon previously attributed to the "supernatural" was found to have a natural explanation.

First off, you seem to lack the value of a pragmatic definition. Secondly, you have not actually thought this through to any sort of rigorous degree. Let's think about this for a moment. The definition of words change over time, correct? Let me put it to you this way: you seem to think EVERY phenomenon previously attributed to the "supernatural" was found to have a natural explanation. So if there is a natural evolution of what we classify as supernatural, then it just makes sense that the definition of supernatural should change over time as well, right? Like, fair is fair, right? So even if I grant you that every phenomenon previously attributed to the "supernatural" was found to have a natural explanation, then clearly the word supernatural should take on a different meaning with time as well, right? So then, who is to say, when all is said and done, and we discover everything there is to know about the universe, that the definition of supernatural doesn't also change with our new discovery of everything? For example, what if the mechanism known as faith insofar as I talked about it earlier ends up being discovered in a manifestation of the natural universe (as it so happens, we are a long way from this being the case, JFYI). Now suppose with me that the definition of supernatural now pertains to matters of faith, just in the context of the natural phenomenon of faith and not the supernatural phenomenon of faith. So suppose that the definition of supernatural changes to objective classification of what faith entails but dropping the magical idea behind it? Do you perhaps now see how my definition makes sense?

I don't think it has one, outside of its use as a device in works of fiction. It's a vacuous non-concept.

There's a word for this. It's called being a hypocrite. You have no problem criticizing my definition, but when I ask you to provide a definition, you don't even attempt to give one. Lazy, lazy, lazy.

That's irrelevant though. The burden is yours to provide a workable definition.

That's not exactly what I would call playing fair. In fact, I would call that playing pretty dirty myself. It's also incredibly lazy to demand something from someone that you are not willing to do yourself.

You don't appear to understand what you've written. Your definition is completely superfluous at best, and unworkable at worst.

Alternate suggestion: it's too technical for you to understand. Sorry you had to hear that.

Nope. You do.

I have no aversion to the word "supernatural". I enjoy works of fantasy and supernatural horror.

LOL. So what definition of supernatural would you provide for fantasy and supernatural horror? I think you might have made a logical misstep somewhere back there. Let me know if you find it.

You, however, apparently need the concept to exist, in order to make sense of your worldview. But you can't even positively and coherently define it, let alone provide a means by which information about it can be reliably gleaned.

Beyond the fact that this is incredibly rude, would you mind telling me what is wrong with the actual definition I gave in its technicality rather than just saying the concept is incoherent? You seem to really have a problem with the concept of the supernatural in general. Perhaps you should think about what the word supernatural actually means to you rather than asking other people to define terms to the concept that you don't think exists.

All of this is your problem. Not mine.

I think you are the one with a problem with all your bold text like I somehow don't actually understand the concept of "you, your, actually."

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I don't feel the need to keep repeating myself, so I'll be condensing some things.

There's a word for this. It's called being a hypocrite.You have no problem criticizing my definition, but when I ask you to provide a definition, you don't even attempt to give one.

I did. I think it's a storytelling device, for stories about ghosts, vampires, fairies, magic, etc.

You, on the other hand, think it actually exists, in reality. So the burden is yours to provide a workable definition with a reliable methodology behind it. You have not done so.

Beyond the fact that this is incredibly rude, would you mind telling me what is wrong with the actual definition I gave

I have. Multiple times. Here it is one more time, not for you, but for the benefit of anyone who may be reading along:

You have no means of determining the difference between when an unexplained phenomenon is actually in defiance of logic, or the natural order, and when it merely appears to be. Your definition relies on baldly assuming that it is, and plugging in the "supernatural" as your explanation. As such, your definition is predicated on a very obvious, very basic argument from ignorance fallacy. You should fix it, if you care to be taken seriously.

Or don't. By all means, keep it up.

 

[Par5]

The only path to equality is by force. We know that wealth naturally follows the 80-20 rule: 80% of the wealth will be owned by 20% of the people. Force is required to get to 50-50. Eventually that means shooting people who resist.

Earlier, those who are not like us are Nazis. Today, it's punch a Nazi. Tomorrow, it's shoot a Nazi. I'm thinking the shooting part starts happening within a decade.

If you replace the rules of Christianity with new rules, then that set of new rules form a religion. The set of new rules mostly governing the West today is based on equality.

You wanted lies. I give you lies:

1. Success comes from cheating.
2. Failure comes from being victimized (by the people in #1.)
3. People are basically good.
4. Men and women are interchangeable.
5. A strong military/nuclear force provokes other countries.

Those are a consequence of believing in equality. They will lead to bad things happening. Women's sports is on the verge of collapse is one example. Marriage is in the process of collapsing.

If you believe in equality, then showering you with authentic information showing the truth doesn't work. Logic doesn't work. Only when you are lined up against a wall to be shot will you begin to think you made a mistake.

Why will you be lined up against a wall?

Because the leaders of the equality movement will eventually go too far even for you. You will complain. And then you will be shot for being a Nazi.

I don't feel inclined to comment too much on your extreme take on things other than to say that I don't ever foresee myself being lined up against a wall to be shot, nor do I see the day that I will be shooting nazis or anyone else for that matter, and I would rather we continued to help erase inequality in the world rather than embrace the religious theocracy that you seem to desire.
Equality is not all about making everyone the same. Equality gives people the right to be different and to have the opportunity to achieve things by their own efforts. It is also called democracy.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I beg to differ. I think this kind of thinking is incredibly destructive to society as a whole.

I disagree. It's extremely healthy to have people who look at arguments, examine them rationally and evaluate their truthfulness based on evidence, logic and reason.

And I would say the implications of that is that you end up with a bunch of people who put arguments ahead of the value of human beings in general.

I think you're mistaken. Atheists can be and are any type of human being at all, from the warmest and most loving to the coldest and most ruthless. All it takes to be an atheist is saying "No" when asked if you believe in the existence of any gods.

People throughout the history of humanity have pretty much always believed in a god in some way, shape, or form.

If by this you are implying that this therefore points towards God existing, then I suggest you examine your argument. You would disagree with most of these people throughout history, and most of them would disagree with you.

Atheism is a relatively new development for humans.

In large numbers, certainly.

An atheist will argue that things naturally progress towards more and more rationalism, but the problem is that rationalism can't develop itself it has to be developed by some outside metric.

Are you claiming that human beings are incapable of developing rational thinking on their own? If so, the history of human thought would seem to disagree with you. Humans have developed laws of evidence, science, mathematics, philosophy and logic through observation of the world and considering things they have found. Your argument doesn't seem to make sense to me.

Further, there is not sufficient evidence to me that rationality is actually increasing.

Compare the average human from a thousand years ago with one from today, and you will see that it certainly is.

Technology is increasing, but I think it is doubtful that people today are any more rational then they have been at any other point in history as far as the history of humanity is concerned.

I'd say that disagrees with history, and is easily disproved.

I think a logical mistep that progressives often make is that humanity as a whole has actually changed in a significant way over the course of about 10,00 years.

Is that 10, 000 years or 1, 000? In any case, yes, of course we have. We've had the democratic, intellectual and industrial revolutions. We've had the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. We've made enormous progress.
I'm a bit puzzled, to be honest. I can't imagine you mean what you say seriously, so I must assume you are making some point that has escaped me.

More to the point, our genetics have probably changed very very little in that amount of time.

True enough. But while our capacity to learn as individual has probably changed very little, our capacity to learn and pass on our learning as a society has improved exponentially.

An atheist would argue that we learn gradually over time, but I would point out there is no way for us to develop the capacity to learn without having some capacity to learn from the start.

I'm sorry - I don't understand what you mean.

So the question really becomes at what point did humanity gain the capacity to learn from one generation to another.

I's say that the following three points were pivotal:
1. The invention of a spoken language (this is the answer to your question, but the next two were important as well).
2. The invention of a written language.
3. The invention of the printing press.
Is this supposed to be a trick question?

To which I would answer it had nothing to do with humanity itself at all but was due to factors completely beyond the control of humans. Naturally, my explanation is that God provided the means for our capacity to think rationally and to learn from one generation to another.

I'd say that it was evolution. You're not a creationist, by any chance, are you?

This can't be explained by natural means without invoking some form of the fine tuning argument.

I believe that it can, and without much difficulty; see above.

The problem is that they do very little observable evaluating at all but instead seem to be content to spit out answers from their favorite database on how to debunk a Christians argument. Personally, I find it sad and pathetic if my suspicion of atheists is correct and they don't actually critically assess the arguments of a theist at all but instead just read what the theist says and then go to look up the answers on how to respond to a theist who makes such and such argument. I find that sort of way to approach discussions intellectually lazy and doesn't actually require much critical thinking at all. It's essentially the same as copying your classmates answers for homework.

Generally, I find it best to argue on my own behalf. But that doesn't mean I don't read articles or books by others and use their arguments. Of course I do! And quoting others or copying ideas of others is fine, so long as you are able to understand and engage with the arguments. On a debating forum, anyone who tries to cut and paste articles without understanding them will quickly be exposed.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

My definition defines what it supposed to.

I believe Eight Foot Manchild is saying that your definition is erroneous.

You have a problem with the concept of supernatural.

I imagine that @Eight Foot Manchild and I have the same problem with the supernatural as we do with God; it is an unsubstantiated claim. Until such time as a believer such as yourself gives us a reason to think that there is any such thing as the supernatural (and no, "unexplained things happen" is not sufficient) it is reasonable to withhold from believing in it.

And to boot, when I try and meet you half way, you think what I say is meaningless.

And he's not wrong. When one person makes an extraordinary claim, it calls for extraordinary evidence. It is disingenuous to suggest that the skeptic "meet them halfway." You claim that God and the supernatural both exist. True meeting you halfway is what we are doing; respecting you by inviting you to present your evidence and giving you a fair hearing. Complaining that we are then not being fair to you by not believing your unimpressive evidence is simply unfair on your part - and makes you, rather than us, look bad.

 

[Larniavc]

Am I wrong about atheists and morality?

Have we not already discussed this?

 

[Larniavc]

but subjective morality should lead to nihilism to be internally consistent or nihilistic hedonism as an alternative.

And when that does not happen what is your explanation?

 

[Larniavc]

I think this kind of thinking is incredibly destructive to society as a whole.

I would strongly disagree. The scientific method has allowed us to develop all kinds of technology that has improved people’s lives immeasurably. Society in western nations (with the exception of America) is safer and more healthy than ever.