you really don't read much do you?
just because you think it was does not make it so....but i understand that is your modus operandi

tacit indeed

how are you not getting this?
Let us just flat out assume that the consciousness is understood by science. Therefore it is "natural".
This was the "given" for my argument.
Can you agree that the conscious is either natural or supernatural? regardless of when someone discovers which it is?
You seem to be completely confused between what the supernatural is and what the unknown is...they are not interchangeable.


i appreciate you weighing in with a elaborate and uninformed rambling to state that "free will? eh, who knows?"


well, if we are just going to make up our definitions for words then obviously when you say "possible" i define that as "observable", and when anything "can be" i define that as "dreamy".


ok, now i realize that you are incapable. Supernatural laws? really? Is that like saying thieves surely must obey the "burglar laws"?



of course you just made an objective statement...the irony is like a little vomit in the back of the throat.....at least you are predictable.

actually that is just A definition...you are a texas sharpshooter


so tell me then....what is your definition of "rightness"....and what is your meaning for "wrongness"....and why would an atheist be concerned with either?



dumbest statement on this thread, imho.
Are your parents aware that you are on their computer?

Themis, your "not really" comment doesn't explain the "red shoe" incident I mentioned very well at all. Also, I'm sure that if you told that lady that it was all in her mind, she would not accept that at all. How could someones mind roam several stories high and see what is on the roof of a building if that mind is still in the body?!?

Unfortunately I am the one who does understand how people view the issue differently. You view it one way which I understand, but you seem to not understand how other people view it.



I understand how you define supernatural, but then I don't think by that definition that it exists, and if it does, there is no way for you or I to know.



I gave how I define the terms, but you seem to not be able to view things outside your own view. This is very limiting if you ever want to understand others.



I should point out that this who issue for you is not about consciousness as a whole, but whether we have free choice. You conclude without any substance to back it up that free choice is a reality for humans, or that a complex brain is not capable of it unless you add some unknown magic pixie dust. Neither of us really know, and at least I am willing to admit such. You just want to make a bunch of assertions you don't know as absolute fact and call everyone else names for not agreeing with you. Do you feel somehow smarter by constantly throwing out insults.



How I define it is well within how others do as well, and it does agree with the dictionary definition of it being beyond scientific understanding.



Natural laws are not the same as legal laws. You can break one but not the other. When it comes to supernatural as how you view it, you cannot show that it even exists. It is just a belief without substance.



Still no substance coming from you. I suppose this is all you have to attack athists with.



It depends on the individual or group. Each group or individual whether religious or not can have different ideas of what is right or wrong. Fortunately most in society can agree on a number of them so as to be able to have a workable society. Atheists are no different then religious people here. Why you cannot understand this I can only conclude that your hatred for this particular groups influences your ability to rationally think about it.

I am not familiar with the story, but I suspect you accept the story as total fact. The problem I suspect is that we don't really know all the factors or details involved that may create a totally different conclusion then the one you want. I am not saying it is not possible, but then we don't know anywhere near enough to conclude anything. You make conclusions based on your religious views.

Here we have a great example of the weaker mind and the lack of true confidence exhibited by, and inherent to, the atheist's position. Notice that i speak of true confidence as opposed to the arrogance that is usually a given from an atheistic viewpoint.
Quite simply and quite clearly i asked for "your definition" - and to which you responded with a clumsy dodge reaffirming your already weak position of some sort of universal subjectivity that surely makes more sense after 2 or 3 hits from a well loaded bong.
So, either you can answer the question and will not, or you simply can not answer the question.

But perhaps you are going to try a little smoke and mirrors...speak about some sort of "basic human rights", or how the "majority rules"...all things which have no scientific basis.....they have no empirical evidence for their existence, but you, no doubt, have some sort of "personal definition" for them...in fact the entire topic of "right" and "wrong" is metaphysical....you know, kinda "supernatural...unless of course you can somehow prove, with evidence - with wonderful "natural" evidence, that "right" and "wrong" actually exists...can you?....
So, from your response above we clearly see that you believe in the supernatural existence of things, because you already admit that "right" and "wrong" exist.....so, my friend....in the words of our dear Buffalot...

...you lose

Again, not sure how you think constant insults is going to make your argument better. I am also not atheist, but agnostic. As to rightness I will go with the dictionary.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rightness?s=t



No ones is going to be objective. It's all subjective which I am sure you hate.



Your link says nothing about right or wrong, but certainly it can be part of the subject, although very subjective. Right and wrong exist only as concepts. BTW here is that sites definition of supernatural. Interesting that it has more then one definition. One of them fits with how I see it.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural?show=0&t=1335059831



LOL Not sure how saying someone loses helps you to win. Again, I already said they do not exist except as concepts.

Why would an atheist not be concerned with either?

You surmise that an atheist will have no concept of "rightness" or "wrongness". Because in your mind these are concepts strictly in the realm of a god? Without a god defining the parameters of behavior, man is a rudderless ship with no abilities to steer actions?

Then "rightness" and "wrongness" should be what exemplifies Christians (Mormons). Mormons would never steal or lie. They would never covet, neither a man's wealth nor his wife. Mormons would forsake wealth and give their worldly goods to the needy. Mormons would turn the other cheek. Mormons would never kill.

Since god outlines how Mormons should live and Mormons have the concept of right and wrong, there should no wrong committed in any Mormon community, except by unbelievers and atheists. Are the jails in Utah inhabited only by atheists?

Last time I visited Salt Lake City I saw the parking lots of the shopping malls full of cars on the sabbath. You're telling me those cars were only those owned by atheists and non-believers? I went to the temple grounds and a beggar stood outside the gates. There was a sign posted, inside the gates, recommending that no money be given such people. Was that a sign posted by an atheist?

What good is claiming the moral high ground if Mormons aren't there?

Yes, those conclusions are based at least partially on my religious views, however, there are so many other evidences as well as cases like the "red shoe" story I mentioned which clearly indicate that there was a legitimate out of body experience by ones spirit.

The Loch Ness Monster was indeed a rare species, yet it was seen several times over the space of a decade or two and even photographed. It was seen by local people and by the odd tourist travelling in that area.

Do you accept this to be sufficient evidence that the Loch Ness Monster is real?

Perhaps, I should have stated, being seen by a reliable and trustworthy witness. As I stated before, there have been many reliable accounts of OBE's. The particular one I mentioned was verified by a very skeptical doctor.

What makes the very few people describing ODE's 'reliable and trustworthy' and the people who were describing the Loch Ness Monster 'unreliable and untrustworthy'?

The people who claim to have seen "Nessie," as far as I am aware of, never got a good close up look. Whereas many people have experienced OBE's themselves.

One eye witness was driving along the road at the side of the lake when Nessie crossed in front of the car. That was pretty close. The people taking photographs got pretty close. These Nessie witnesses experienced close encounters themselves - so sorry, on that basis that are exactly the same as OBE witnesses. In fact they are more reliable because they all witnessed the exact same monster. OBE witnesses can't get their story straight, was it a red shoe or a tennis shoe or on a ledge or on a roof or...

Not really, you should read some of those experiences! Maybe those people were drunk and saw a giant lizard.

No need to bring Joseph Smith into this.

Your suggestion that the Loch Ness Monster witnesses were drunk is unfounded.
I could counter by saying that maybe OBE witnesses were drunk at the time.

The fact is, the witnesses to the Loch Ness Monster are as reliable as those claiming OBE's.
It is just that you choose to believe one because it fits what you want to believe.

On the case I mentioned, a skeptical doctor verified the authenticity of the account. I doubt that any one else verified that story later.

Lot's of people verified the existence of the Loch Ness Monster.

Well, I can't say for myself, but if it turns out to be true then I guess I will feel silly.

I win!

You have no demonstrable difference in the credibility to people witnessing Nessie over those claiming OBE's.

But if I personally experience either one you will be the first to know...