What is your justification for believing in the supernatural?

@spendius,

Quote:

But "categorically the same" is a priorism. The conclusion is logically imperative on your own premiss.

Sure, when dealing with these subjects all we have is our own premise.

Quote:

And "existence involving gods" is not the same as gods. You have just dismissed the vast bulk of the human race and about 90% of your fellow Americans.

Ruritania and Wogga-wogga are categorically the same as America. All three are spiritual concepts with no existence in physical science.

But categorically, gods and "existence involving gods" is the same for those atheists. By mentioning the vast bulk of the human race and about 990% of my fellow Americans, you are making an appeal to popularity.

Quote:

Unicorns and FSMs are merely a cheap and infantile rhetorical trick to discredit Christianity and its moral teachings for those who have a need to do that. As such a need is not shared by about 90% of the population it cannot be a reflex action or a biological response and it therefore must be learned.

Instead Christians employ other cheap rhetorical tricks, like the "it's best to be safe than sorry," and the "the fishing will be great in Paradise!" ploy about believing in Christianity and its god.

Quote:

A scientist would be interested in how it is learned by 10% and not learned by 90%. Which involves psycho-social problems in both cases. Research into those require honest answers to questions.

They could start by studying atheistic families and societies.

Quote:

For example--have you been involved in sexual behaviour which Christian morality disapproves of? Abortion, artificial birth control, homosexuality, adultery or sex outside sanctified marriage or masturbation.

If so then there is an obvious explanation for the a priorism.

In the case of the 90% religious there is obviously some self-sacrifice involved and in the other case self-indulgence.

Hence the a priorism is a justification for self-indulgence and if it is successful in persuading the 90% then there is either no regulation of sexual behaviour or some alternative to Christian regulation.

Ok, but you don't speak to the other 10% who don't have the baggage of Christian morality and Christian regulation.

Quote:

Which do you prefer IB?

I prefer an honest approach to sexuality and sexual morality that, for the most part, doesn't proscribe individuals' consent with each other, and protects individuals' declinations in personal involvement.

You seem to hold that Christian sexual morality is the be all and end all of sexual morality. The vast majority of humanity throughout history and beyond adhered to other moralities. The Christian one has been around only a couple of millennia, and it certainly wasn't and isn't universal. How do you think humanity got as far as it did up to that point?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

First, as i've said so often, i'm not in bad mood, i'm not angry, i m not "out of control"--you're not that important.

If you don't know that anyone is pretending, than your statement makes no sense. It is perfectly logical to point out that all of this arises from your approach to the question of whether or not there are any gods, and from nothing else. Although you waffle about it all the time, you have in the past dismissed the possibility of faires, pixies and elves. Which makes you vulnerable to the criticism you are leveling against others. You are not, despite your arrogant claims, always agnostic.

You have many times asserted that you are superior, because you have this silly little mantra about admitting that one does not know, and yet as so many people here have pointed out so many times, you are inconsistent about your agnostic position. You want to wrap yourself in the mantle of intellectual and moral superiority, but it keeps slipping off--and we can see the emperor's new clothes.

I'm not at all confused, Bubba, i know you're a big phony.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Equally dismissible.

And that makes a difference...how????

Simply being dismissible is a part of many philosophies. Christians dismiss Zeus, Ra, Odin. Acknowledging that gods deserve no more consideration than any other supernatural being is to acknowledge that evidence, not preference, determines what should receive special consideration.

So, your dismissal of these beings for special consideration, is arbitrary. Your "superior" philosophy of "not knowing" is a farce. You don't live the philosophy you hold up because you easily dismiss some beings and not others.

Theism is not the non-belief in the idea that gods don't exist. It is the belief that a god (or gods) exist. Do you fit that definition? No.

Atheism is not a belief at all. Atheism is not having a god (or gods) among the things you believe in. Do you fit that definition? Yes.

You may not know if gods exist, but do you believe gods exist? Admitting you're an atheist doesn't threaten your ability to say you don't know if gods exist because saying you're an atheist says nothing about "knowing" at all.

A
R
T

3 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

First, as i've said so often, i'm not in bad mood, i'm not angry, i m not "out of control"--you're not that important.

Yeah! Sounds like Nixon telling us he was not a crook!

Quote:

You want to wrap yourself in the mantle of intellectual and moral superiority, but it keeps slipping off--and we can see the emperor's new clothes.

Like I said, you certainly seem intent on saying that I want to do that...so go for it. Anything that helps improve that disposition of yours is good for the planet.

And as for a lecture from you on not trying to show superiority, I'd sooner take a lecture for our governor Chris Christie on how to lose weight.

Good grief, this is so much fun! Razz

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

My disposition is fine--and it benefits from pointing out to basically dishonest people that they are basically dishonest. Thanks for the opportunity, Bubba.

0 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

Atheism is not a belief at all. Atheism is not having a god (or gods) among the things you believe in. Do you fit that definition? Yes.

You may not know if gods exist, but do you believe gods exist? Admitting you're an atheist doesn't threaten your ability to say you don't know if gods exist because saying you're an atheist says nothing about "knowing" at all.

Jeez, Art, I know how much atheists like you would like someone like me to be one of them...but I really have to decline. I am an agnostic...not an atheist.

But it does more than amuse me that you try so hard to include me. I feel good knowing I am wanted so desperately.

1 Reply

@failures art,

By the way...InfraBlue was explaining why atheists are so fixated on stuff like unicorns and such...and suggested it was because they are dismissible.

If you do not see the irony in that, I guess your sense of humor needs some repair.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Atheism is not a belief at all. Atheism is not having a god (or gods) among the things you believe in. Do you fit that definition? Yes.

You may not know if gods exist, but do you believe gods exist? Admitting you're an atheist doesn't threaten your ability to say you don't know if gods exist because saying you're an atheist says nothing about "knowing" at all.

Jeez, Art, I know how much atheists like you would like someone like me to be one of them...but I really have to decline. I am an agnostic...not an atheist.

The same would be true if you said "I believe in the teachings of Christ, that he was the son of god, and that he died and was resurrected for my sins. But I'm not a Christian."

Words mean things, Frank. The definition of "atheist" fit you, no matter how you choose to identify otherwise. Why you deny this is silly. Like I said: baggage. You seem to have some idea of what it would mean to be an atheist, because you have some fear of being associated with some people by the word.

Frank Apisa wrote:

But it does more than amuse me that you try so hard to include me. I feel good knowing I am wanted so desperately.

Frank's philosophy on words:

"John has no hair on his head, but he's not bald."
"Tomatoes have seeds, but they aren't fruit."
"I don't believe in any gods, but I'm not an atheist."

There is a sort of truthiness to your philosophy. Words don't mean things, they're just what you label things.

A
R
T

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

By the way...InfraBlue was explaining why atheists are so fixated on stuff like unicorns and such...and suggested it was because they are dismissible.

If you do not see the irony in that, I guess your sense of humor needs some repair.

Pardon my ignorance, but how is that ironic?

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

By the way...InfraBlue was explaining why atheists are so fixated on stuff like unicorns and such...and suggested it was because they are dismissible.

Your projecting. Atheists aren't particularly "fixated." That's a value you've attributed. This is why I corrected you by explaining that these things are "equally dismissible." In other words, they get no more and no less special consideration. You frame it as a fixation because you're having to hear about it at all. If you're really curious why you're being hit with this, it is because you're philosophy is weak in addressing it, and others aren't accepting your hand waving whilst claiming to be "agnostic always" about all things. There is a major hole in your claimed position, and these supernatural beings demonstrate your inconsistencies.

Frank Apisa wrote:

If you do not see the irony in that, I guess your sense of humor needs some repair.

Heh. Your understanding of "irony" is on the list of words you simply use with no regard for meaning.

"arbitrary"
"agnostic"
"atheist"
"irony"

Irony - "the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning."

So once again: "I don't believe in gods, and I'm not an atheist!"

LOL. Your keep-that-word-away-from-me position requires you to say absurd things, Frank.

A
R
T

0 Replies

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

Atheism is not a belief at all. Atheism is not having a god (or gods) among the things you believe in. Do you fit that definition? Yes.

what is the problem with accepting Frank as an agnostic?

Quote:

Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable

Is it just Frank, or can none of us be agnostic?

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

Sure, when dealing with these subjects all we have is our own premise.

But most people don't include God, unicorns and FSMs in the same category. If anybody does then it is obvious they are equally dismissable or acceptable as creators of the world because the definition of God is the creator of the world and there was no spaghetti before Heinz and unicorns would have had nowhere to stand on before the world was created.

Quote:

By mentioning the vast bulk of the human race and about 990% of my fellow Americans, you are making an appeal to popularity.

I am not. I am referring to facts. Whoever heard of me trying to be popular?

Quote:

The Christian one has been around only a couple of millennia, and it certainly wasn't and isn't universal. How do you think humanity got as far as it did up to that point?

It was a pretty sticky point if my reading of history is a guide. It's still a bit sticky now but a lot less than it was at the point referred to. A very lot less.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

Thank you, Beth. I appreciate you speaking to this issue.

Another question might be: Since the absence of "I believe in a god" is the only thing necessary to make one an atheist...does that mean my one-year old grandnephew has to be considered an atheist until he is old enough to understand the concept of "belief in god"?

And how about the young mentally retarded (I'm not sure of the PC wording) woman down the street? Is she also required to be counted among the atheists of the world because she does not have the mental faculties to understand the "belief in god" concept?

Why do the atheists insist the default must be "atheism?"

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Quite opposite.

I'm saying we're all agnostics. Agnosticism isn't exclusive from atheism or theism. Knowledge and belief are categorically different. The definition you provided fit's everyone who I've seen post in this thread.

Frank can call himself an "agnostic," but if he doesn't believe in any gods, he can't deny that calling him an "atheist" is perfectly accurate.

A
R
T

3 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

I'm saying we're all agnostics. Agnosticism isn't exclusive from atheism or theism. Knowledge and belief are categorically different. The definition you provided fit's everyone who I've seen post in this thread.

Frank can call himself an "agnostic," but if he doesn't believe in any gods, he can't deny that calling him an "atheist" is perfectly accurate.

Don't only can I deny it....I AM DOING SO.

I have been doing so for several posts now.

Why do you say that anyone who does not believe in a god is an atheist? Where does that come from?

1 Reply

@failures art,

There's a definition for agnostic atheists which might fit Frank, but that's for him to determine.

It looks to me like you're muddling categories.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Another question might be: Since the absence of "I believe in a god" is the only thing necessary to make one an atheist...does that mean my one-year old grandnephew has to be considered an atheist until he is old enough to understand the concept of "belief in god"?

She would fit the definition. Absolutely. Also, it isn't a matter of her age. It's a matter what she is presented, and given that she chooses to believe.

I suppose a separate discussion could be had on if the ability to believe itself is something one must develop in pair with skepticism. So at what point a declaration of belief would incorporate the full understanding of the concept is an interesting question unto itself.

Frank Apisa wrote:

And how about the young mentally retarded (I'm not sure of the PC wording) woman down the street?

I have no idea if this person believes or does not. My ex-girlfriend's cousin had down syndrome and participated in church and expressed religious belief. I cannot state much on these declarations. In her case, I'd take at face that she believed, because she said so. Like above, I cannot know the understanding she has of belief itself.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Is she also required to be counted among the atheists of the world because she does not have the mental faculties to understand the "belief in god" concept?

Don't assume she can't. She may very well. If she does understand the idea of belief, then she may very well believe or not. If she doesn't then either declaration will be hard to parse.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Why do the atheists insist the default must be "atheism?"

Because it is. Similarly, you don't believe in unicorns until you decide not to. We start with an empty list of things we believe in, and fill it over time. We don't start with an infinite list of things and cross things off.

A
R
T

3 Replies

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

I'm saying we're all agnostics.

I have friends and neighbours who would tell you that you are completely wrong about that. They believe in god/gods/God and they know what they believe in.

1 Reply

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

We start with an empty list of things we believe in, and fill it over time. We don't start with an infinite list of things and cross things off.

It is clear that this is your belief, and it matches mine to some degree, but again I see this as a belief, not knowledge.

I don't think we know enough about the world/universe/minds yet to present that as fact.

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Another question might be: Since the absence of "I believe in a god" is the only thing necessary to make one an atheist...does that mean my one-year old grandnephew has to be considered an atheist until he is old enough to understand the concept of "belief in god"?

Quote:
She would fit the definition. Absolutely. Also, it isn't a matter of her age.

Art, most people would know enough to refer to someone's grandnephew as "he" rather than "she"...but apparently that escaped you.

Quote:

It's a matter what she is presented, and given that she chooses to believe.

Any chance you could do that sentence again in English. I'd love to respond to it.

1 Reply

What is your justification for believing in the supernatural?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know