Peanut Gallery

I think the source source isn't the sauce on my saucey sauce.Are you trying to break mike again? I'm starting to smoke. On a serious note. I can understand the Copperfield reasoning but at the end of the day it all has to do with argumentum ad ignorantiam.To be truly neutral, then there will not necessarily be the need to equate the supernatural with absurd things.Now whether that is done with epithets or indirectly, it still is relevant that you only use examples of things that are obviously false.This is understandable, in that you are being rational when you attribute the same logical credence to each and every supernatural phenomenon. In that sense I can't get round your logic.But the other part to this is that this line of reasoning tends to go along the lines of strictly empirical thinking, when we know that people can have internal knowledge that is genuine knowledge, outside of empiricism.I don't agree with Coyote that it is naval-gazing, because that is like saying that we should adhere to empiricism and completely reject any other way of thinking, through epistemology or logic.In this sense the atheist is arguing more about themselves when they allude to obviously false things.If a strict empiricism is your course, then that is your course, but this in itself does not mean that anything beyond the natural, whether supernatural or physical, is obviously false.Treating it false until proof positive comes along is logical positivism. The same reasoning applies when we did not know Jupiter existed. Before it was identified it could have been regarded as absurd until proven true.I don't hold this attitude against you because I understand it, there is merit to it, rationally speaking, but logically I regard RAZD's position as more neutral because it tells us nothing about RAZD.All the best. (Hi, by the way. ) Disclaimer; I am not stating that you are saying that God is an obviously false absurd thing, it is simply my own observation that it seems that only the physical is regarded as reality to you guys. Personally, that states more about our ignorance in my view. Afterall, in a world with no marine life, would it shock you to find an octopus in your bath? What an absurd natural entity. Who would believe you? What rational person would believe you? I.e. there is more to it than just rational empiricism

Just to say, I shouldn't have made that general view aimed at you, sorry if it seemed I was attacking you. I really should have used the "general reply", I don't think it is fair to single you out.I think, reading your post, you misunderstood a few things.For example, when I say RAZD seems neutral, what I really means is that if I didn't know he was Deist, it would be difficult to know what he believed. I would go for agnostic.We are all biased. But I don't believe that atheists such as you have the keys to reason.You say that we can confirm things like an octopus.My point was, that something natural which is true and real, can be regarded as farcical despite being real and true.In this way, God is farcical, I assume, to you. But this is the things, He is only ever farcical to a certain group of people, therefore doesn't that group of people explain that attitude, and therefore doesn't that tell us more about them than God?You say that supernatural activity only comes from a human source therefore it is human. Can you see how your doubt in God as someone real or true, comes from your particular group.I am honestly trying to get into the atheist's mindset. In this manner I am not attacking you or atheists. I personally don't have anything against you, you have never harmed me or insulted me and even if you had I have to forgive you, I don't get a choice.Now, I deem it reasonable that you meet my own experiences with skepticism but I don't believe the only worthwhile view is the narrow view of science and empiricism. It's as though you do not regard any potential realities beyond the one we can detect unless empiricism is in play.I have a question I'd love you to answer, it's an honest question, I only am interested in a genuine answer.If God exists, and created us, and is the God of the bible, and if you were wrong about all this, would that be that you were misled by him or would you regard that you had not been correct?It strikes me as very unusual if guys like you would admitt to being wrong. I actually don't think that you think you can be wrong about anything, but maybe that's unfair. I am probably wrong but I don't think I have ever know an atheist to say that he perhaps could have misled himself, having a particular attitude towards God.