What is your justification for believing in the supernatural?

How can you know what is possible, are you a god or something?

Are you certain that anything is possible?

Your reply can be summed up with the same word I used in an earlier post... .................. sophistry.

I have lots of atheistic friends...and they seemed obsessed by them, so I do not want to insult them by guessing they do not exist.

Quote:

Quote:
I have lots of atheistic friends...and they seemed obsessed by them, so I do not want to insult them by guessing they do not exist.

How do you know you have any friends at all? What is your evidence? Obviously the more "friends" you have the more diluted the concept becomes. And, if only 10% of Americans are atheists, you are bound to have 9 times as many "friends" who are religious in some way, unless you make atheism a condition of your "friendship".

Are you merely making a crude allusion to what a really, really popular guy you are?

"Friend" is a relative concept. Unless it is tested to the limit it can be applied to members of the Society of Friends which is a national and international organisation from Alaska to Zanzibar.

A little thing like being caught in flagrante delicto in bed with a couple of naked doxies has caused many a friendship to wither clean away. Even borrowing a lawnmower has destroyed many a happy friendship in grass makeover territory.

You have to admit that lawns present to the viewer a sight of the most deformed and tortured grass in the whole evolutionary canon of the monocotyledonous graminoid genera. A fiendish idea really in that a lawn serves no useful purpose unless it is merely to keep house prices up. And it never can because house prices are kept up by other interventions such as proximity to active volcanoes and deals about the route the new freeway should take. Two very simple examples I know but there might be an A2ker intelligent and brave enough to run them through the noggin for a while.

The Marquis de Sade, that great sublime martyr in the atheist cause, said that the propensity to manicure the environment betrayed a sadistic character. It explains why he was conducting research on the unmanicured. Not that he could find it of course which is why he resorted to the administration of certain chemical substances his valet had introduced into a box of chocolates which were to be presented to a likely looking slapper who had agreed to come to his rooms. For which offence he, and his valet, were sentenced to death in absentia and were burned in effigy to slake the frustrated rage of the provincial aspiring classes. Being a moderate man he failed to appreciate how fast the lady could consume an expensive box of chocolates.

Or are you referring to your Christmas card list. Is the golfer whose ball you put in your pocket, to ensure it was actually lost, a friend.

As a matter of interest, how can anyone define a golfball as being "lost"? Except technically and tautologically. That's getting to the core of the religious belief in the sanctity of private property. Are you agnostic about the sanctity of private property? There's something a bit supernatural about that don't you think? Bearing in mind just the evolution of the human species never mind the rest of it.

"I cannot dispute that flying spaghetti monsters exist" is not logic. It is mere acceptance that one cannot disprove the negative. That the negative was conceived without evidence is tossed away as non logic. Wandering in the wilderness.

There are many. There's Allah, Jehova, Shiva, Vishnu and Krishna, just to name a few. Each of these gods are known to human beings, though their ontological status is unknown. Personally I think that it is unlikely that there are beings in the universe that conform to human imagination so precisely that they can be identified as one of the above mentioned.
When it comes to Krishna and the Hindu gods, these are understood to be metaphors for forces that are of such a nature that they are beyond our ability to comprehend, which is why metaphors are used. A point in favor of Hinduism and Krishna consciousness if you ask me. They are less concerned with "actual reality" and more concerned with "the human experience.

Are there any gods? The question is indeterminate. Without any defining criteria, you'd given nothing in which too evaluate. Being able to compose the question, does not make the question compelling. Further, in inability to answer a question (especially when it's form is flawed) does not mean we are faced with a dilemma.

That said, I'm not pained to say that, in the absence of any compelling reason to consider their existence, no gods exist.

You on the other hand, can't grant yourself permission here to admit you'd cross a field under the threat of an invisible unicorn.

Frank, I have bad new for you, your house is now surrounded by invisible unicorns. Tomorrow, they're staging an ambush. They've got supplies for a full week. If you leave your home next week, they're going to kill you. I hope you have enough supplies to agnosticly survive the week.

Of course there are gods. In the materialist theory of mind, which can only be refuted by arguments from the supernatural, the idea is a material object within the body. So if people have the idea of a god then it exists as a material object.

To say that there is no god requires that the idea, the material object, of god exists for it to be said that it isn't there. Which is ridiculous. It's in their own head. Where else could it be?

To not know whether it exists or not is equally ridiculous although it often serves, with stupid or overly polite audiences, to enable one to express one's general tolerance, open-mindedness and general for he's a jolly good fellow type of shite whilst claiming the intellectual high ground.

It is necessary to bring what would be a large number of these variable material objects in the mind into some sort of congruence so that a degree of social cohesion may lead to progress or even just to survival. Thus education and a theology which seeks to perfect it for cultural purposes.

What is the theology of the agnostic by which I presume you are encouraging us to live by?

When you said, “their ontological status is unknown”…are you actually saying, “their ontological status is unknown to Cyracuz”…and if so, are you saying that you do not know if gods exist.

It just appears to me that arbitrarily including or excluding the possibility of a force sufficiently different from what we consider “forces of nature” is illogical. It seems more logical to me to suggest at least the possibility of the existence of forces or “beings” that can be considered gods…perhaps even “creator” gods.

I MAY BE WRONG…but it is my opinion that simply saying, “I do not know” makes more sense; is more logical; and is more ethical than “yes, gods exist” or “no, gods do not exist.”

I am trying to trap anyone with this question... It seems more logical to me to suggest at least the possibility of the existence of forces or “beings” that can be considered gods…perhaps even “creator” gods.

I MAY BE WRONG…but it is my opinion that simply saying, “I do not know” makes more sense; is more logical; and is more ethical than “yes, gods exist” or “no, gods do not exist.”