What is your justification for believing in the supernatural?

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
I think you missed the point of the question.

The question was intended to test whether your functional behavior (actions, choices) matches up with your philosophy on agnosticism.

You asked a question...I answered it.

If you have another question...fire away.

Ok thanks. I'll rephrase it slightly and try again...

If you were walking down a path in the woods (in the real world, not a fantasy world) and came across a large open field that you wanted to cross, but there was a sign on the gate that said, "Warning, This field is protected by a giant invisible unicorn that will kill you if you enter. But you are welcome to enter if you like." ... Would you cross the field? And why?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
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.

Does that mean you do not know? And what was that word igm used earlier? Was it sophistry?

I answered the question in the most honest and accurate way possible. The form of the question is flawed. It is indeterminate.

Frank Apisa wrote:

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

Do you not consider “existence” itself a compelling reason to at least consider the possibility? Wow...that is amazing. I cannot help but wonder why not, but I doubt I will get a reasonable response if I were to ask about it.

No, I do not consider existence a compelling reason. Is there a reason that I must? You're still missing the point. A supernatural being need not be a god to get the credit for creating the universe, so if your justification for thinking about only one subset of beings is due to their relation to the "nature of existence," you're still being inconsistent.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
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.

I answered that I would not cross a field with a warning on it….even if the owner of the land used boogyman instead of unicorn. And I would not. If you want to assume I would...that is your right. But you would be wrong.

You know, there actually is a difference between the sign saying landmines or a unicorn. You know landmines exist.

Frank Apisa wrote:

What is the fascination of atheists with creatures like unicorns, leprechauns, tooth fairies, and Easter bunnies?

Because they make for excellent examples on the process of belief as it relates to knowledge.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
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.

Really! And you have shown yourself to be such a reasonable supplier of information that I am supposed to take this warning seriously?

You're right, I can't be trusted! I've just, you know, called wolf too many times! How can I ever hope to save you Frank! You're just going have to make a call on your own. It sucks that you can't have absolute knowledge that there are no invisible unicorns around your house. Hey man, you're life hangs in the balance! Think about it? Are you willing to take the risk? I mean, you don't KNOW that I am lying. You may BELIEVE I am. Only your agnosticism can GUARANTEE your safety. So how do you gamble your life? On your absence of knowledge, or your skepticism?

What's so hard about saying you don't know if there is a unicorn ambush?

Frank Apisa wrote:

You flatter yourself, Art. I am actually laughing both at the supposed threat…and the thought that you actually considered this a reasonable effort at discussing this point.

I'm laughing, because your philosophy puts you in a truly absurd dilemma. Look at us laughing!

Frank Apisa wrote:

You can do better than this, Art...and should set your mind to doing so.

Are there unicorns, Frank?
R
T

2 Replies

@igm,

Quote:

Here is something to consider: If an atheist says he believes there are no gods he is not the only type of atheist. There is another type who say that they are without gods i.e. the concept of gods has simply been let go of. They live there life free from that concept.

How can one be “without gods” unless the person is asserting there are no gods? Can one be “without humans” by simply stating “I am without humans” in a human society. To be "without gods" implies a denial that gods exist. That, by the way, is classical atheism.

In any case, I deliberately refrained from using the word atheists in my comment. My comment was directed at people who say “there is a GOD” or “there are no gods.”

If a person calls him/herself an atheist and acknowledges he/she does not know if there are gods or not…and is not interested in discussing the possibility…that is just fine. But if the atheist is the classical atheist (the kind that mostly existed before the Internet came into being)…the atheist is asserting there are no gods. If an atheist is asserting he is "without gods"...he is denying the existence of gods. If you see that as incorrect, let's discuss it.

Are you asserting there are no gods? You certainly are not asserting there are gods…so you must be stating you do not know if there are gods or not.

Quote:

In order to bolster your argument you focus on the atheists who say there is no god or gods but this means that you are ignoring those atheists who have thought through what it means to be an atheist and have realized that it is better to say that they are without gods, philosophically it is protected from your arguments.

I try not to ignore anyone, but if you are saying that I am then let me correct that. Please read my statement up above. It takes into account both types. Which type are you?

Quote:

Many believe agnostics hold the superior 'middle ground' but I believe atheists who are 'without gods' do.

I personally think the “I don’t know” position is the superior position, which is the reason I adopt it for my own personal philosophy. I MOST ASSUREDLY DO NOT CONSIDER IT A MIDDLE GROUND…and have stated that over the years many times. As far as I am concerned, people who assert “there is a GOD” and people who assert “there are no gods” are mirror images of each other. People who say they do not know are outside of that continuum completely. That is where I want to be...outside the continuum...not in the middle of it. But if you are happy there...welcome to it.

Quote:

There are theists who say there is a god and agnostics who say 'you can't say there isn't a god' and there is a branch of atheists who say there is no god. But free from all those extremes are the atheists who are 'without god'. They are the ones who hold the middle ground between all of the other extremes.

If you want the middle ground, please take it. You get no static from me on that. I prefer to be outside the continuum that wants to pretend the question of the existence of gods is answerable under present circumstances. It doesn't appear to be to me.

Quote:

It suits you to ignore these atheists but every atheist has the chance to become this type of atheist... an atheist 'without god'. Your arguments don't work against them... so you aim your argument at the easier target the 'there are no gods' atheists.

My argument is that I do not know if there are gods; I do not know if there are no gods; I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to make a meaningful guess on the issue. Not sure what you mean that it “does not work” against the atheists you are insisting are here, but I think it works just fine.

Quote:

If an atheist is without god he has relinquished one concept i.e. the concept of gods. An agnostic has to have additional concepts; those concepts that maintain nobody can know there aren't any gods and then because of that it necessarily follows nobody can know that any supernatural event or being could not exist. The atheists who are without god are philosophically relaxed when they examine the other extreme views including agnosticism.

You are trying to make an inferior position superior by using lots of words. It is not working.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Quote:

Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
I think you missed the point of the question.

The question was intended to test whether your functional behavior (actions, choices) matches up with your philosophy on agnosticism.

You asked a question...I answered it.

If you have another question...fire away.

Ok thanks. I'll rephrase it slightly and try again...

If you were walking down a path in the woods (in the real world, not a fantasy world) and came across a large open field that you wanted to cross, but there was a sign on the gate that said, "Warning, This field is protected by a giant invisible unicorn that will kill you if you enter. But you are welcome to enter if you like." ... Would you cross the field? And why?

As I said originally, if I saw any kind of warning...I would not cross the field. And the fact that I was invited to do so after the fact would only make the warning more dire. So I still would not cross.

For the record, if the sign read, "If you cross this field, GOD will strike you dead!"...I would not cross. Not because I fear any gods...or any invisible unicorns...but because I take warnings seriously.

3 Replies

This thread just gets more and more hilarious.

0 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

I'm laughing, because your philosophy puts you in a truly absurd dilemma. Look at us laughing!

My philosophy does not put me in an absurd position at all, Art. And truly, it doesn't sound as though you are laughing. It sounds to me as though you are getting desperate. Feel free to borrow that also...so I can have another laugh.

But if you want to stop this back and forth nonsense and actually have a reasonable, polite, respectful conversation of two people with quite divergent personal philosophies...that would be nice also.

0 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

Are there unicorns, Frank?

Beats me, Art. Lots of places in this universe where I haven't been...so how would I know. Doesn't seem to be any here on Earth...although they may be invisible and otherwise unavailable to human senses.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

As I said originally, if I saw any kind of warning...I would not cross the field. And the fact that I was invited to do so after the fact would only make the warning more dire. So I still would not cross.

For the record, if the sign read, "If you cross this field, GOD will strike you dead!"...I would not cross. Not because I fear any gods...or any invisible unicorns...but because I take warnings seriously.

Frank, this makes you religious.

I know you'll object, but let's examine what you just said. You explicitly stated that if the field said god will strike you down is no different than any other warning. More importantly, you state that you would COMPLY, and take such a warning seriously.

Here's the fun part Frank: That field is earth, and the signs are posted everywhere about what you can an cannot do. Religious books dictate what you can and cannot do, and even outline the punishments for disobedience. These are often presented as "warnings," and so you've now put yourself in the position to explain how you defy all these warnings for the field you are already in, based on what you claim you believe.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Are there unicorns, Frank?

Beats me, Art. Lots of places in this universe where I haven't been...so how would I know. Doesn't seem to be any here on Earth...although they may be invisible and otherwise unavailable to human senses.

Sounds like you're going to say in your house for the next week Frank. Good luck.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

Frank, this makes you religious.

Art, you are so anxious to make me seem wrong that you are getting illogical.

I am saying that ANY WARNING...would make me not walk through that field. If the warning said field mice would enlarge and devour me...I would not walk through that field.

ANY WARNING...whether I though it realistic or not...would mean that someone thought enough to put up a warning. Even if I considered the warning itself absurd...I would not go through the field.

If you want to think that makes me religious...if that thought makes your day any better...GO WITH IT.

We are here in A2K to talk and enjoy ourselves. I am enjoying this thread immensely and I can only hope you are also.

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

Sounds like you're going to say in your house for the next week Frank. Good luck.

If that honestly is what it sounds like to you, Art, you've got some serious problems.

But...your entertainment value is still very high.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

So wait...

You're interested in discussion of god due to what you believe is their potential relationship to the nature of existence, but when it comes to warning about blastphemy, you'll gladly yell out "**** you!" in the sky at any number of gods.

However, you're uninterested in talking about unicorns etc, but would take serious a warning posted on a fence about one.

That's not just double talk, it's double think! My Orwellian bingo card is almost full on you!

A
R
Trust me, I'm laughing.

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

Trust me, I'm laughing.

Nah, trusting you would be foolish on my part...and I am not foolish.

I cannot tell you how happy I am YOU are defending the atheistic position here.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Perhaps.

The sanctity of private property, which you now allow, is not based on any scientific law but simply on us all agreeing to it. It exists if we agree it does. And it isn't natural. So it must be supernatural.

And it exists in a class of the population which has agreed it does.

So if a class of people agree God exists, leaving out the materialist theory of mind which has God existing for another reason, a scientific one, then it follows that God exists for that class of people just as the sanctity of private property exists for the class of people who agree it does.

Similarly with FSMs, fairies, djinns and the like none of which can be proved to not have Godlike powers.

Why are you, perhaps, not agnostic about the sanctity of private property which might need an authoritarian God to become established.

An agnostic position has to be valid in all times and places so could you explain how the sanctity of private property could have come into being during the foggy ruins of time.

And you showed you believed in the sanctity of private property when your honour forbade you to enter the field with the warning about the unicorn patrol posted on the gate.

It looks like you believe in God's works to protect your possessions but not when He interfered with your legover operations when you formulated your viewpoints.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

And you showed you believed in the sanctity of private property when your honour forbade you to enter the field with the warning about the unicorn patrol posted on the gate.

My motivation for not crossing the field has nothing to do with honor (no matter that I would love it to be) nor with gods or unicorns--nor with respect for the sanctity of property.

It has to do with fear.

If someone actually stakes a warning, no matter how bizarre, I figure I am safer heeding it than ignoring it. I am not afraid of gods or unicorns in this scenario…but of the property owner. I would prefer not to get shot…and if it truly were okay with the property owner for me, or anyone else, to cross his property, he would not have put the sign there.

Since the remainder of your comments presuppose I am not crossing the field because of honor and respect for the sanctity of property…I won’t comment on them. If you have new comments to make, I’ll give it a try.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

"Perhaps" and "Αυτή είναι η ελληνική μου" as responses to two of my posts, compared with responses to others, provides viewers with an opportunity to see the level of discourse you are most comfortable with and which you believe you can easily splatter.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

And I'm so glad you're defending the religious position, Frank. Even though you seem unaware of it.

It doesn't matter if it's written on a sign or in a book. There is a warning about the field we are already in. You are both claiming to defy (I.e.- all that "**** you" god stuff) and abide (I.e.- if the sign said god will strike you down, you'd comply).

A
R
T

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I would prefer not to get shot

But you are most unlikely to be shot Frank. Nobody would risk long-term jail shooting an unarmed shagged out old has-been for crossing his field. And especially not somebody with an obvious sense of humour.

The warning reminded you to respect private property and it served its purpose with you which it might not with others.

No--you believe in the sanctity of private property and it is a spiritual entity of a telepathic, paranormal character. Watch infants playing with toys before they were taught to believe in the sanctity of private property. Or monkeys with which species we have a lot of DNA in common.

From a Selfish Gene point of view the idea is preposterous.

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

And I'm so glad you're defending the religious position, Frank. Even though you seem unaware of it.

If it makes you feel good to think that I am defending the religious position, Art, go for it. What makes you happy...makes me happy.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

No--you believe in the sanctity of private property and it is a spiritual entity of a telepathic, paranormal character. Watch infants playing with toys before they were taught to believe in the sanctity of private property. Or monkeys with which species we have a lot of DNA in common.

I think private property ought to be respected. But the reason I would not cross the property has more to do with the warning.

If it makes you happy to think otherwise...go for it. I would suggest a pint alongside though.

0 Replies

What is your justification for believing in the supernatural?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know