What is your justification for believing in the supernatural?

@Cyracuz,

You will need to explain not only what "human values" are but how they are to be inculcated and enforced.

Your musical performances are a whole bunch of sound frequencies.

1 Reply

@spendius,

For human values, a good starting point is perhaps the universal declaration of human rights.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

And who is to do the declaring?

Has the UN not done?

A declaration that nobody should milk their rights for all they are worth might be the first rule because rights milked for all they are worth are bound to result in economic catastrophe which will inevitably lead to no rights at all except those of force and fraud.

Our current government is pushing the line that it is too many rights that are causing the sluggish return to growth. Having the right to work would certainly perplex Mr Obama. And some demand that right.

Platitudes might sound good when expressed in tones of goodwill and compassion to impress listeners but they are not the slightest use.

Nearly 50 million unborn babies have been denied the right to life in the USA alone since Roe Wade. And nobody can say that the successful sperm had not earned it.

1 Reply

@spendius,

You are very good at seeing problems. Not so good at seeing solutions.

1 Reply

No one has put the theist's refutation of agnosticism here is an extract:

"Agnosticism is starting to become quite popular these days; everyone seems to be seeking refuge in it. Its perceived to be the safest route for the secular man. For those unfamiliar with it, agnosticism is basically the belief that there is no way to know whether or not there is a God. The agnostic therefore neither believes nor disbelieves in God, since both the theist and the atheist fail to conclusively prove the existence of one. There are different forms of agnosticism with varying definitions (e.g. ignosticism); but at the end it boils to the agnostic being someone who refrains from taking a stand and defends his ignorance.

Here’s the problem with the entire agnostic world view. It is based on one fundamentally flawed precept; and that is the assumption that the proof for God is an empirical one. It rests on the belief that if there was to be a proof for God then it would be very much like a philosophical or scientific proof which could be repeated by any one at anytime and would always yield the same result. Since nothing like that exists, the agnostic ignorantly yet confidently says, ‘There’s no way to know’.

What the agnostic fails to realize is that empirical proofs exist for things that are confined to the material world; things to which the laws of nature apply, things that are within the realm of human comprehension. God by definition is far beyond all this. How then does one expect to find an empirical proof for something that is metaphysical? How then does one apply science to the One that created science?

The proof for God is not an empirical one but an experiential one. It is not like a mathematical proof that is based on fundamental axioms rather it is an experiential proof like the proof for love. How would one prove that love exists? Certainly not by running scientific experiments and by debating with philosophers. We all know that love exists since it is a phenomenon that we’ve all experienced."

4 Replies

@Cyracuz,

My solution is that atheist and agnostic pantsdowners should shut up until they have an alternative to offer.

You are fond of wimpy assertions aren't you Cyr.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

My solution is that atheist and agnostic pantsdowners should shut up until they have an alternative to offer.

I see. But it's ok for you to **** all over any constructive thing anyone has to say without coming up with an alternative?

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

You are fond of wimpy assertions aren't you Cyr.

What makes you so sure that he is fond of your assertions?

0 Replies

@igm,

Quote:

"Agnosticism is starting to become quite popular these days; everyone seems to be seeking refuge in it.

Anything that begins with a sentence like this probably is not worth reading, but I will stick with it for a bit more.

One does not “take refuge” in agnosticism any more than one takes refuge in theism or atheism. Of the three choices, theists consider the theistic position preferable to the other two; atheists consider the atheistic position to be preferable to the other two; and agnostics consider the agnostic position to be preferable to the other two.

Quote:

Its perceived to be the safest route for the secular man.

Obviously this writer has never visited A2K!

Quote:

For those unfamiliar with it, agnosticism is basically the belief that there is no way to know whether or not there is a God.

For most agnostics, there is no "belief." And almost all agnostics will acknowledge that it is not impossible for a GOD to reveal itself if it chooses to do so...if there is a GOD...and if it chooses to do so.

Quote:

The agnostic therefore neither believes nor disbelieves in God, since both the theist and the atheist fail to conclusively prove the existence of one.

Nonsense.

The agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves in gods since the evidence is ambiguous. Such “evidence” as exists is used by theists to claim almost certainty that there is a GOD and by atheists to claim almost certainty there are no gods. No realistic agnostic would ask theists or atheists to prove the existence or non-existence of gods. We might ask for what evidence is available.

Theists to their credit normally just say "I have faith that there is a GOD.'

Atheists try to make their case be scientific and reasoned...and never offer any evidence that is not a variation on "theists cannot produce a god for inspection"...or..."there is no need for a god to explain existence."

Neither of those are evidence there are no gods...so they are neither scientific nor reasoned.

This essay is absurd. Bring on the author and we can discuss the humor aspect of it.

It is interesting, though, that both theists and atheists agree that there is something “wrong” with acknowledging that one does not know what one does not know.

1 Reply

@igm,

Igm, Do you believe Buddha made Nirvana in one try?

If you do, Who do you believe the Dali Lama is??

1 Reply

Agnosticism is a rejection of both theism and atheism....

It is not in the middle.....

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Why do I need an alternative? I'm not attacking Christianity. You are and thus you need an alternative to Christianity to recommend to us.

Tearing down is easy.

0 Replies

@igm,

Quote:

The proof for God is not an empirical one but an experiential one. It is not like a mathematical proof that is based on fundamental axioms rather it is an experiential proof like the proof for love. How would one prove that love exists? Certainly not by running scientific experiments and by debating with philosophers. We all know that love exists since it is a phenomenon that we’ve all experienced."

This makes sense to me.

Experience in my understanding is everything in life, but "all" not necesserily have experienced love.. Alot "think" that they have. Alas have settled , thinking they are in love.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

The proof for God is not an empirical one but an experiential one. It is not like a mathematical proof that is based on fundamental axioms rather it is an experiential proof like the proof for love. How would one prove that love exists?

So, "God" is just a feeling? It's not an external "being" at all, just a purely personal emotion?

That's a whole lot more likely to be reality than most other concepts of God, but it's certainly not going to jive very well with a lot of other definitions of "God".

1 Reply

@FOUND SOUL,

Judge not . . . it seems the religious fanatics love to sit in judgment on others.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote:

"God" is just a feeling?

0 Replies

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

Igm, Do you believe Buddha made Nirvana in one try?

If you do, Who do you believe the Dali Lama is??

In answer to your two questions Spade, I would say no to the first and an ordinary human being to the second i.e. fundamentally there is no difference between any human being. The difference is that he understands the true meaning of Buddhism more than most human beings do.

1 Reply

@igm,

Thanks...

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

The idea of reincarnation might be considered supernatural.

Depends on how the belief is stated. If a person claims not only that reincarnation is real, but is administrated by some being, it would definitely be supernatural. If they claimed that reincarnation is real, but was a product of nature, it would be a natural claim (albeit an far fetched one).

Cyracuz wrote:

Out of all our beliefs about what might come after death, the eventuality of nothing included, I find the idea of reincarnation to be the most appealing.

In recent conversations with a Hindu coworker, I've learned there are two forms of this claim. One exists such that the number of "souls" (<--perhaps insufficient wording) are finite and ascend and descend through various forms depending on their moral accounting (Karma). The second form of reincarnation does not make a claim to a finite number of souls, and previous forms and future forms are less guided/administrated. Both forms tend to psychologically reward being a human.

Cyracuz wrote:

Justifying this belief isn't really important to me. I know it's a belief, and that we cannot know, but that is also true of the belief that nothing will happen after death. So when it comes down to it, the belief in reincarnation requires no more or less justification than the belief that nothing follows death.

I think this is sloppy wording.

If we knew something happened after we died, but could not describe it, I'd say you were correct. We have no compelling reason to believe anything happens.

Cyracuz wrote:

I couldn't edit the previous post. I noticed that I'd not included the last line of my reasoning, which was only to say that the belief that nothing happens after death is often considered the "rational" option that requires no justification.

By what definition of "rational" would any alternative be considered to be a more justified belief?

Cyracuz wrote:

That is, of course, a misconception similar to the one often held by some Christians that the existence of God is self evident or beyond any possible doubt.

"Self-evident" is term used far too carelessly.

A
R
T

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

And you are also correct that Judeo-Christian theistic guesses and atheistic guesses tend to be given more respect and credence than something like “reincarnation.”

What's an atheistic guess? You're projecting. Further, multiple theistic philosophies don't include afterlives. Indeed, the evolution of religious ideas on the afterlife has largely trended this way, but it's not a clear cut. Simply put, being an atheist or theist says nothing of a person's belief about what happens or doesn't happen upon death. I imagine a great deal of congruence, but not symmetry, Frank.

You're attributing extra clauses to the definition of both "theism" and "atheism."

Frank Apisa wrote:

I can understand the theistic position in that regard, but any atheists who elevate his/her guesses about what happens above other guesses (NOT ALL DO) are probably a bit out of focus.

There is a certain framework to your arguments that is frustrating. You tend to apply parity to all things, and many times when it's undeserved.

Imagine for a moment, a clear glass cup and a pitcher of water. The water can be poured into the cup. The cup can have water in it or it can be empty. How full the cup is doesn't change a statement such as "There is water in the cup." Let's say that the liquid represents belief. A cup with water is a theistic cup. A cup without water is an atheistic cup. Rejection of water comes in three ways: (1) A lid on the cup prevents water from getting in, (2) taking the cup and pouring it out, or (3) the cup may leak. In fact a combination of these three things can happen, or various things can change over time. How much water at any given time could change. A cup could be full to the brim from the first pour, it could be partially full, it could have water but leaking, the lid could be on loose and water could be slowly getting in, it could be moist from being poured out, or it could be bone dry. Many possibilities exist on the how a cup arrives at a state of having water or having no water.

You've chosen to frame atheism as a belief. The pouring of nothing into an already empty cup. This takes atheism and makes it some other liquid--let's say, wine. So now we start thinking in terms of what the cup has in it, not if the cup has something in it. You seem to frame yourself as the empty cup with no theistic or atheistic fluid in it. You seem fond of calling this "agnostic."

There is a problem here. You've defined atheism by an active belief in no gods (or the sometimes more wordy non-belief in gods). If you posit claims using a negative proof, you wrongly attribute the burden. Moreover, you seem to believe that this is fair and rational. It's the sort of idea that "both sides" need to make a case.

It's the mentality of Russel's teapot.
It's the mentality of "teach the controversy!"
It's the mentality of anti-intellectualism.

A
R
T

1 Reply

What is your justification for believing in the supernatural?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know