I recently wrote a long essay with a lot of research illustrating the reasons for my own view of the super natural (SN) as opposed to what I consider to be the enlightenment countrified view, the continental idea that atheists attack. That essay, "The Empirical Supernatural," I posted on CARM. I had dropped the link in several posts over a long period, no one ever read it and no one ever understood what I was referring to. So I just put the whole thing in the text box and posted it direly on the board. Here are the reactions of atheists, as they just steadfastly refused to consider the evidence.





first:
not an atheist (screen name-he is an atheist in terms of the alliances he keeps)

Don't post a wall of text and expect people to take it seriously.

Really, just don't. I'd say the same if it were an atheist posting long paragraphless quotes of people who agreed with him or her. If you've got something to say, say it with economy.

Mike WC

Request, Meta: cut out all the stuff about biography and credentials. It adds a great deal of needless length to a forum post. Don't really need footnotes in an OP, either. 

william Rea
Huge cut and paste jobs combined with hubris? Well that's a winning formula!

If you really knew your subject you'd be able to explain it to anyone.

Quit whining and man up.

This moron says this in response to a 13 page paper with 21 foot notes that he did not read. Where does he get the idea that I'm not explaining? It's such a detailed explanation it takes 13 pages but he didn't read them so how does he know I didn't explain?


boneso

 and what then? we just believe? your so arrogant that you think your posts on a forum will refute any atheists argument against it that they will have nothing left to do but submit and start believing in god! how long have you been on these forums doing the same thing over and over again? 10 years you say? more?

I've got 21 foot notes dumb ass. you might look at the evidence rather than refusing to read it. that might give you a clue as to why you should believe it.

 I think is the same guy:

do you know what the definition of insanity is? look it up and take note, your living in the past.

I assume he has reference to a truism (not the official definition) about doing the same thing over agian. Since he didn't read the essay does he know i'm doing that? Unless of course he means just trying to show them the facts is insane becuase they are too stupid to care and too inept to look. I guess I am insane then because I still keep hoping some them will grow some brains and read the evidence.

skylurker

 I haven't read this yet as I don't have time at the moment... but will try to read it later.

I don't think he ever did.He at least new he would make better mileage if he promised to read it.

However do any of these descriptions or justifications of the supernatural pertain to things like the spontaneous growth of a new set of lungs in response to a prayer request to a God or some demi-god (a Catholic saint) and that allegedly happen in greater frequency at some "special" geographical location such as Lourdes? These are examples of supernatural I have pressed you with in the past.

I suspect we are continueing on with the Tillich thing and his opposition to the supernatural. From what I have skimmed in your write-up here is that the description of the supernatural pertain to human awareness, experience and love and not miracle healing and such.

That's more or less the case. In fact, this proves my point form the Tillich discussion that he was not against the model of SN that I construct in the essay, that model does not preclude miraculous healing. It changes the concept of what's happening with miraculous healing. No long is it seen as breaking in and violating natural law (indeed how could lit violate a law that is purely descriptive?) but is the result of harmony between the two sides of the one reality, the natural and the SN. In fact Tillich alludes to this concept.

from my AW post Friday Jan 18
2013 "Was Paul Tillich Anti-Supernatural?"

Student: Well, in catechism in Sunday school, we learned that miracles imply a "suspension of the laws of nature." I suppose that is as good a definition as any.
Dr. Tillich: Where did you learn this? It is very interesting. Because this is precisely the idea which I fiercely combat in all my work, whenever I speak of these things. Was that really taught in your catechism, or by the Sunday-school teacher, who could not do better because she had learned it from another Sunday-school teacher who also could not do better?

I wrote a lot more about that in that post.

 so many stupid excuses to keep from reading it. they could have read enough to know what it says by now. but they would rather just bad mouth it and pretend it goes away. tomorrow these same people will be saying the same incorrect disproved clap trap about the SN because they refuse to study it and find the turth.