If You Believe In The Supernatural, Do You Have To Believe In God?

[ainamotore]

This was a topic amongst friends recently. I believe in God, and the Supernatural so for me the answer is yes. To the non believer, is the Supernatural bunk and just doesn't exist?
If you believe their are Supernatural occurrences that take place on earth, would you have to believe that God is real to believe in the Supernatural, or do you think it could exist with no God?
Discuss.

There are no supernatural occurences. Everything that takes place in the universe is natural, both by definition and observation. Occurences that are not fully understood can be designated as supernatural by those without an understanding of epistemology and metaphysics, however that designation is without relevance. Nothing that occurs can be outside of nature/existence.

Although God does not exist, if he did, he would be just as natural as everything else. By definition and observation. It's really that simple.

That also applies to the false designation of "natural" vs "man-made". Man is natural. Everything he does and thinks is natural. All chemicals are natural. All inventions are natural. All concepts are natural. And they always were. And they always are. And they always will be. The main reason to designate them otherwise is to exert social and/or political power.

[GuineaPig]

Damnit.

[Vivace]

This was a topic amongst friends recently. I believe in God, and the Supernatural so for me the answer is yes. To the non believer, is the Supernatural bunk and just doesn't exist?
If you believe their are Supernatural occurrences that take place on earth, would you have to believe that God is real to believe in the Supernatural, or do you think it could exist with no God?
Discuss.

There are no supernatural occurences. Everything that takes place in the universe is natural, both by definition and observation. Occurences that are not fully understood can be designated as supernatural by those without an understanding of epistemology and metaphysics, however that designation is without relevance. Nothing that occurs can be outside of nature/existence.

Although God does not exist, if he did, he would be just as natural as everything else. By definition and observation. It's really that simple.

That also applies to the false designation of "natural" vs "man-made". Man is natural. Everything he does and thinks is natural. All chemicals are natural. All inventions are natural. All concepts are natural. And they always were. And they always are. And they always will be. The main reason to designate them otherwise is to exert social and/or political power.

Interesting philosophy. Unfortunately I disagree. Metaphysics doesn't not categorize everything as "natural" and it does categorize based on abstraction. The further you abstract the simplier things become. The more you make complex the harder it is to understand. Humans rationalize on that which they perceive through their sense faculties. They can still rationalize on those things they cannot perceive through their senses but only insofar as it is based on the direct observation from its species. For example, I see a man walking down the street. I can perceive him, and I can perceive his human nature in the man. I cannot perceive this human nature as common between the man and myself. That is, I don't see this commonality, but I can indirectly make that rational argument and therefore come to the knowledge that there is a universality of human nature. This is how many of the ideas of metaphysics are derived.

Now the idea of supernatural might be something of a debate in its terms, that is, what are we talking about when we are discussion the supernatural, but I do agree that in all things there is a "nature" about that. And you did make a point of referencing that if God does exist he exists in a nature which is entirely correct. He exists in a divine nature. However by definition only, not observation. We cannot "observe" God through our senses directly, only indirectly can we come to conclusions about the divine nature. However this argument nor your own cannot substaniate your conviction that God doesn't exist. You are basing your argument on direct observation only. If I cannot observe God through the human senses directly than God cannot exist. I have already proven this false above with the idea of human nature being common. We cannot perceive this idea through our senses directly but it is a rational idea that we can come to through a direct study of that which is human nature, a direct study of man. This doesn't not prove the existance of God outright, but it certainly proves that direct observation cannot disprove the existance of God.

[Tick]

This was a topic amongst friends recently. I believe in God, and the Supernatural so for me the answer is yes. To the non believer, is the Supernatural bunk and just doesn't exist?
If you believe their are Supernatural occurrences that take place on earth, would you have to believe that God is real to believe in the Supernatural, or do you think it could exist with no God?
Discuss.

There are no supernatural occurences. Everything that takes place in the universe is natural


Although God does not exist

Where is the, imo?  You have no proof of anything?
and that my friend is a true statement,

[PlaysLikeMyung]

This was a topic amongst friends recently. I believe in God, and the Supernatural so for me the answer is yes. To the non believer, is the Supernatural bunk and just doesn't exist?
If you believe their are Supernatural occurrences that take place on earth, would you have to believe that God is real to believe in the Supernatural, or do you think it could exist with no God?
Discuss.

There are no supernatural occurences. Everything that takes place in the universe is natural


Although God does not exist

Where is the, imo?  You have no proof of anything?
and that my friend is a true statement,

Well, you have no proof that God DOES exist, so the argument is moot.

This isn't a debate about whether God exists. His point was valid

[hefdaddy42]

This was a topic amongst friends recently. I believe in God, and the Supernatural so for me the answer is yes. To the non believer, is the Supernatural bunk and just doesn't exist?
If you believe their are Supernatural occurrences that take place on earth, would you have to believe that God is real to believe in the Supernatural, or do you think it could exist with no God?
Discuss.

There are no supernatural occurences. Everything that takes place in the universe is natural, both by definition and observation. Occurences that are not fully understood can be designated as supernatural by those without an understanding of epistemology and metaphysics, however that designation is without relevance. Nothing that occurs can be outside of nature/existence.

Although God does not exist, if he did, he would be just as natural as everything else. By definition and observation. It's really that simple.

That also applies to the false designation of "natural" vs "man-made". Man is natural. Everything he does and thinks is natural. All chemicals are natural. All inventions are natural. All concepts are natural. And they always were. And they always are. And they always will be. The main reason to designate them otherwise is to exert social and/or political power.

FFS

[Tick]

This was a topic amongst friends recently. I believe in God, and the Supernatural so for me the answer is yes. To the non believer, is the Supernatural bunk and just doesn't exist?
If you believe their are Supernatural occurrences that take place on earth, would you have to believe that God is real to believe in the Supernatural, or do you think it could exist with no God?
Discuss.

There are no supernatural occurences. Everything that takes place in the universe is natural


Although God does not exist

Where is the, imo?  You have no proof of anything?
and that my friend is a true statement,

Well, you have no proof that God DOES exist, so the argument is moot.

This isn't a debate about whether God exists. His point was valid

I don't try to prove anything to anyone and I am not arguing. His point wasn't valid in my books. When I state something I believe, I don't paint it as a fact everyone else must adhere to.

[ainamotore]

I don't try to prove anything to anyone and I am not arguing. His point wasn't valid in my books. When I state something I believe, I don't paint it as a fact everyone else must adhere to.

Belief/faith is not knowledge. In fact it is a short-circuit that prevents knowledge. If there were a God, faith would be prohibited. It is absurd to postulate a God that provides man with the unique trait of survival (reason), then demand that he suspend its use. It would be the equivalent of God creating cats, then demanding they refrain from the use of their claws and their teeth for survival. Absurd.

So there is no God, but if there were, Faith would be the first deadly Sin. In fact, the existence of faith is almost a proof in itself that there is no God.

Unfortunately, there is only one reality, and our job as sentient beings is to correctly learn that reality. To the degree that we use imagination as a cognitive tool, we fail. When you postulate based on your feelings and fears, you fail. God is a postulation by man combining fear and uncertainty - two emotions that are very uncomfortable and demand resolution. However, the God concept is a non-solution to fear of the unknown, and it dooms man to fear and failure, and prevents the correct exercise of reason.

We need to move past this nonsense, life is too good to waste on God. And too short.

[Tick]

I don't try to prove anything to anyone and I am not arguing. His point wasn't valid in my books. When I state something I believe, I don't paint it as a fact everyone else must adhere to.

Belief/faith is not knowledge. In fact it is a short-circuit that prevents knowledge. If there were a God, faith would be prohibited. It is absurd to postulate a God that provides man with the unique trait of survival (reason), then demand that he suspend its use. It would be the equivalent of God creating cats, then demanding they refrain from the use of their claws and their teeth for survival. Absurd.

So there is no God, but if there were, Faith would be the first deadly Sin. In fact, the existence of faith is almost a proof in itself that there is no God.

Unfortunately, there is only one reality, and our job as sentient beings is to correctly learn that reality. To the degree that we use imagination as a cognitive tool, we fail. When you postulate based on your feelings and fears, you fail. God is a postulation by man combining fear and uncertainty - two emotions that are very uncomfortable and demand resolution. However, the God concept is a non-solution to fear of the unknown, and it dooms man to fear and failure, and prevents the correct exercise of reason.

We need to move past this nonsense, life is too good to waste on God. And too short.

You obviously have a strong conviction in your beliefs. (or lack there of)
You might want to adopt some respect for others and there feelings. Its a practice that will help you greatly in life. Just a thought for you to chew on.

[Vivace]

I don't try to prove anything to anyone and I am not arguing. His point wasn't valid in my books. When I state something I believe, I don't paint it as a fact everyone else must adhere to.

Belief/faith is not knowledge. In fact it is a short-circuit that prevents knowledge. If there were a God, faith would be prohibited. It is absurd to postulate a God that provides man with the unique trait of survival (reason), then demand that he suspend its use. It would be the equivalent of God creating cats, then demanding they refrain from the use of their claws and their teeth for survival. Absurd.

What? Why is faith not allowed when speaking about God? Why is faith a short-circuit that prevents knowledge? The idea of faith in God is not WITHOUT reason. Faith without reason is called extremism and we see it in the news in form of terrorist attacks and hate campaigns. Reason is necessary for faith hence why we are not only endowed with the potential of faith but can actually use it in its proper context. Where exactly are you getting your information about faith?

So there is no God, but if there were, Faith would be the first deadly Sin. In fact, the existence of faith is almost a proof in itself that there is no God.

this makes zero sense and is fundamentally flawed from the start given that you have no idea what faith is, how it works, and why you cannot use it as a basis to disprove God. You can't take that which is the object of faith and suddenly declare it null and void because faith exists. That's not faith.

Unfortunately, there is only one reality, and our job as sentient beings is to correctly learn that reality. To the degree that we use imagination as a cognitive tool, we fail. When you postulate based on your feelings and fears, you fail. God is a postulation by man combining fear and uncertainty - two emotions that are very uncomfortable and demand resolution. However, the God concept is a non-solution to fear of the unknown, and it dooms man to fear and failure, and prevents the correct exercise of reason.

Wrong! imagination, fear and feelings are a natural part of the human being like reason and intellect. How you postulate the God just dooms man to failure is flawed already in that reason is what allows us to know God "correctly". Without reason you cannot begin to postulate God in the first place.

We need to move past this nonsensical thinking about God and faith.

fixed.

[Tick]

I don't try to prove anything to anyone and I am not arguing. His point wasn't valid in my books. When I state something I believe, I don't paint it as a fact everyone else must adhere to.

Belief/faith is not knowledge. In fact it is a short-circuit that prevents knowledge. If there were a God, faith would be prohibited. It is absurd to postulate a God that provides man with the unique trait of survival (reason), then demand that he suspend its use. It would be the equivalent of God creating cats, then demanding they refrain from the use of their claws and their teeth for survival. Absurd.

What? Why is faith not allowed when speaking about God? Why is faith a short-circuit that prevents knowledge? The idea of faith in God is not WITHOUT reason. Faith without reason is called extremism and we see it in the news in form of terrorist attacks and hate campaigns. Reason is necessary for faith hence why we are not only endowed with the potential of faith but can actually use it in its proper context. Where exactly are you getting your information about faith?

So there is no God, but if there were, Faith would be the first deadly Sin. In fact, the existence of faith is almost a proof in itself that there is no God.

this makes zero sense and is fundamentally flawed from the start given that you have no idea what faith is, how it works, and why you cannot use it as a basis to disprove God. You can't take that which is the object of faith and suddenly declare it null and void.

Unfortunately, there is only one reality, and our job as sentient beings is to correctly learn that reality. To the degree that we use imagination as a cognitive tool, we fail. When you postulate based on your feelings and fears, you fail. God is a postulation by man combining fear and uncertainty - two emotions that are very uncomfortable and demand resolution. However, the God concept is a non-solution to fear of the unknown, and it dooms man to fear and failure, and prevents the correct exercise of reason.

Wrong! imagination, fear and feelings are a natural part of the human being like reason and intellect. How you postulate the God just dooms man to failure is flawed already in that reason is what allows us to know God "correctly". Without reason you cannot begin to postulate God in the first place.

We need to move past this nonsensical thinking about God and faith.

fixed.

You make more sense then he can handle. He's just trollin.

[GuineaPig]

As we've established before, there is no point in responding to ainamotore because he is already right and you are already wrong.

[Vivace]

As we've established before, there is no point in responding to ainamotore because he is already right and you are already wrong.

Damnit! 

[Seventh Son]

I don't try to prove anything to anyone and I am not arguing. His point wasn't valid in my books. When I state something I believe, I don't paint it as a fact everyone else must adhere to.

Belief/faith is not knowledge. In fact it is a short-circuit that prevents knowledge. If there were a God, faith would be prohibited. It is absurd to postulate a God that provides man with the unique trait of survival (reason), then demand that he suspend its use. It would be the equivalent of God creating cats, then demanding they refrain from the use of their claws and their teeth for survival. Absurd.

What? Why is faith not allowed when speaking about God? Why is faith a short-circuit that prevents knowledge? The idea of faith in God is not WITHOUT reason. Faith without reason is called extremism and we see it in the news in form of terrorist attacks and hate campaigns. Reason is necessary for faith hence why we are not only endowed with the potential of faith but can actually use it in its proper context. Where exactly are you getting your information about faith?

So there is no God, but if there were, Faith would be the first deadly Sin. In fact, the existence of faith is almost a proof in itself that there is no God.

this makes zero sense and is fundamentally flawed from the start given that you have no idea what faith is, how it works, and why you cannot use it as a basis to disprove God. You can't take that which is the object of faith and suddenly declare it null and void.

Unfortunately, there is only one reality, and our job as sentient beings is to correctly learn that reality. To the degree that we use imagination as a cognitive tool, we fail. When you postulate based on your feelings and fears, you fail. God is a postulation by man combining fear and uncertainty - two emotions that are very uncomfortable and demand resolution. However, the God concept is a non-solution to fear of the unknown, and it dooms man to fear and failure, and prevents the correct exercise of reason.

Wrong! imagination, fear and feelings are a natural part of the human being like reason and intellect. How you postulate the God just dooms man to failure is flawed already in that reason is what allows us to know God "correctly". Without reason you cannot begin to postulate God in the first place.

We need to move past this nonsensical thinking about God and faith.

fixed.

You make more sense then he can handle. He's just trollin.

Be careful there, you don't want to get banned from P/R for that.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

I don't try to prove anything to anyone and I am not arguing. His point wasn't valid in my books. When I state something I believe, I don't paint it as a fact everyone else must adhere to.

Belief/faith is not knowledge. In fact it is a short-circuit that prevents knowledge. If there were a God, faith would be prohibited. It is absurd to postulate a God that provides man with the unique trait of survival (reason), then demand that he suspend its use. It would be the equivalent of God creating cats, then demanding they refrain from the use of their claws and their teeth for survival. Absurd.

What? Why is faith not allowed when speaking about God? Why is faith a short-circuit that prevents knowledge? The idea of faith in God is not WITHOUT reason. Faith without reason is called extremism and we see it in the news in form of terrorist attacks and hate campaigns. Reason is necessary for faith hence why we are not only endowed with the potential of faith but can actually use it in its proper context. Where exactly are you getting your information about faith?

So there is no God, but if there were, Faith would be the first deadly Sin. In fact, the existence of faith is almost a proof in itself that there is no God.

this makes zero sense and is fundamentally flawed from the start given that you have no idea what faith is, how it works, and why you cannot use it as a basis to disprove God. You can't take that which is the object of faith and suddenly declare it null and void.

Unfortunately, there is only one reality, and our job as sentient beings is to correctly learn that reality. To the degree that we use imagination as a cognitive tool, we fail. When you postulate based on your feelings and fears, you fail. God is a postulation by man combining fear and uncertainty - two emotions that are very uncomfortable and demand resolution. However, the God concept is a non-solution to fear of the unknown, and it dooms man to fear and failure, and prevents the correct exercise of reason.

Wrong! imagination, fear and feelings are a natural part of the human being like reason and intellect. How you postulate the God just dooms man to failure is flawed already in that reason is what allows us to know God "correctly". Without reason you cannot begin to postulate God in the first place.

We need to move past this nonsensical thinking about God and faith.

fixed.

You make more sense then he can handle. He's just trollin.

Tick, I don't necessarily agree with him, but at the very least he's putting his OPINIONS (because on the internet, you can only assume that the person speaking are saying his OPINIONS) out there in a respectful fashion. Calling him a troll is counterproductive and does nothing to move discussion along. He may think his thoughts are fact, but at least he's not outright saying that you're wrong.

I know what trolling is. If I see it, I will deal with it accordingly

[Tick]

I don't try to prove anything to anyone and I am not arguing. His point wasn't valid in my books. When I state something I believe, I don't paint it as a fact everyone else must adhere to.

Belief/faith is not knowledge. In fact it is a short-circuit that prevents knowledge. If there were a God, faith would be prohibited. It is absurd to postulate a God that provides man with the unique trait of survival (reason), then demand that he suspend its use. It would be the equivalent of God creating cats, then demanding they refrain from the use of their claws and their teeth for survival. Absurd.

What? Why is faith not allowed when speaking about God? Why is faith a short-circuit that prevents knowledge? The idea of faith in God is not WITHOUT reason. Faith without reason is called extremism and we see it in the news in form of terrorist attacks and hate campaigns. Reason is necessary for faith hence why we are not only endowed with the potential of faith but can actually use it in its proper context. Where exactly are you getting your information about faith?

So there is no God, but if there were, Faith would be the first deadly Sin. In fact, the existence of faith is almost a proof in itself that there is no God.

this makes zero sense and is fundamentally flawed from the start given that you have no idea what faith is, how it works, and why you cannot use it as a basis to disprove God. You can't take that which is the object of faith and suddenly declare it null and void.

Unfortunately, there is only one reality, and our job as sentient beings is to correctly learn that reality. To the degree that we use imagination as a cognitive tool, we fail. When you postulate based on your feelings and fears, you fail. God is a postulation by man combining fear and uncertainty - two emotions that are very uncomfortable and demand resolution. However, the God concept is a non-solution to fear of the unknown, and it dooms man to fear and failure, and prevents the correct exercise of reason.

Wrong! imagination, fear and feelings are a natural part of the human being like reason and intellect. How you postulate the God just dooms man to failure is flawed already in that reason is what allows us to know God "correctly". Without reason you cannot begin to postulate God in the first place.

We need to move past this nonsensical thinking about God and faith.

fixed.

You make more sense then he can handle. He's just trollin.

Tick, I don't necessarily agree with him, but at the very least he's putting his OPINIONS (because on the internet, you can only assume that the person speaking are saying his OPINIONS) out there in a respectful fashion. Calling him a troll is counterproductive and does nothing to move discussion along. He may think his thoughts are fact, but at least he's not outright saying that you're wrong.

I know what trolling is. If I see it, I will deal with it accordingly

I define a troll as someone whose sole person is to be in attack mode and spout out things that are outlandish and provoke anger from other members. To bait them into an angry response. Its being disrespectful of others view point by responding with no regard for anyone's feelings but your own. Its easy to bring forth a point of view respectfully if you try.

This is how Wikipedia defines trolling and it seems his posts in this thread qualify in my opinion...

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2] In addition to the offending poster, the noun troll can also refer to the provocative message itself, as in "that was an excellent troll you posted". While the term troll and its associated action trolling are primarily associated with Internet discourse, media attention in recent years has made such labels highly subjective, with trolling being used to describe intentionally provocative actions outside of an online context. For example, recent media accounts have used the term troll to describe "a person who defaces internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families."[3][4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29

I never called him a troll, but I believe he is posting in that manner. I felt disrespected by his words. Respect. Its not that hard.

[ainamotore]

I define a troll as someone whose sole person is to be in attack mode and spout out things that are outlandish and provoke anger from other members. To bait them into an angry response. Its being disrespectful of others view point by responding with no regard for anyone's feelings but your own. Its easy to bring forth a point of view respectfully if you try.

This is how Wikipedia defines trolling and it seems his posts in this thread qualify in my opinion...

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2] In addition to the offending poster, the noun troll can also refer to the provocative message itself, as in "that was an excellent troll you posted". While the term troll and its associated action trolling are primarily associated with Internet discourse, media attention in recent years has made such labels highly subjective, with trolling being used to describe intentionally provocative actions outside of an online context. For example, recent media accounts have used the term troll to describe "a person who defaces internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families."[3][4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29

I never called him a troll, but I believe he is posting in that manner. I felt disrespected by his words. Respect. Its not that hard.

I do notice that when an atheist strongly and confidently puts forth their argument, that believers in God often feel profoundly threatened and lash out, usually displaying a measure of hostility. And in a theocracy like Iran, expressing my viewpoint would probably result in my execution.

I do not have the same visceral reaction to religious people at all. I know that their religion brings them comfort and a feeling of safety, not to mention a perceived rescue from mortality. Of course, many of my family members are religious, and I obviously avoid discussing the topic with them, as I do want to get them rattled.

However I make no bones about the fact that I view my position as absolutely and immutably correct, logical, and basically unassailable. That probably comes across in my posts, and many people don't like that. I do not show respect for religious positions, because I do not respect religious positions.

So let's just leave it like this:

Believe what you want and live however you want and go in peace. It is a fantastic free country we live in, and people are free to live rationally or irrationally based on their personal needs and circumstances. I think that atheism is the best way to live and the correct way to live. And I knew that practically from birth. I am consonant with reality and in harmony with the universe and the singular reality in which we live. God is a tool, but not a tool I need in my toolbox. Others may want or need that tool, so be it. Live and let live.

Meanwhile, arguing the merits with many of the recent posts is counterproductive, as very little logic is displayed. The objections are largely emotional, and do not lend themselves to philosophical discussion.

I think I'd rather just play my guitar...

[j]

However I make no bones about the fact that I view my position as absolutely and immutably correct, logical, and basically unassailable.

 

He has spoken!

Don't be too reasonable or open-minded there, it could be dangerous.

-J

[PlaysLikeMyung]

It's a good point though, because a lot of people who are religious feel the same way.

However, he never came across to me as hostile or as a troll. He did not call anyone out by name, and just implying that he's correct and others aren't isn't really grounds for action.

Please stop commenting on it.

[hefdaddy42]

He's not trolling, but he isn't being a concientious member of the community, either.  And he is presenting his "opinions" in such a manner that will brook no alternative viewpoints, and he is therefore not engaging in discussion, but in mere pontificating.  There isn't much use or need for that here.  Be part of a discussion, or don't bother posting here, ESPECIALLY in this subforum.

[Ħ]

Actually, I would say that if something is supernatural, that would demand NO God.  Because if their IS a God, then all of a sudden things that were normally seen as supernatural would fall into place as something natural.

[ainamotore]

Actually, I would say that if something is supernatural, that would demand NO God.  Because if their IS a God, then all of a sudden things that were normally seen as supernatural would fall into place as something natural.

Correct. To clarify, there is nothing outside of nature and existence. There are things in existence that are not understood, however their locus remains within nature and existence, regardless of our level of understanding or misunderstanding. Our job, at its noblest level, is to discover what is unknown. Not to declare what we only imagine, to be real.

The social policy of arbitrarily accepting imagined phenomena as real leads to destruction and evil, and centuries of nine one ones.

That is why Faith is evil. It requires suspension of the use of our primary tool of survival: Reason. And replaces it with whatever arbitrary imaginings one cares to construct.

[ainamotore]

And on that note, our "example of the day" showing what happens when Reason is usurped by Faith:

https://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/15/on-trial-faith-delusion-or-an-excuse-for-criminal-action/?hpt=C1

[Tick]

It's a good point though, because a lot of people who are religious feel the same way.

However, he never came across to me as hostile or as a troll. He did not call anyone out by name, and just implying that he's correct and others aren't isn't really grounds for action.

Please stop commenting on it.

You don't have to call someone out by name. When you respond to there post you are responding to that individual, imo.
As he said himself, he is respectful in the way he discusses this stuff around family members. On this board however its his way or the highway.
All I am saying is, you can get your point across with respect for people, but he chooses to do it with the up most arrogance, and laughably wants to paint me as lashing out. That's pretty funny.

He's not trolling, but he isn't being a concientious member of the community, either.  And he is presenting his "opinions" in such a manner that will brook no alternative viewpoints, and he is therefore not engaging in discussion, but in mere pontificating.  There isn't much use or need for that here.  Be part of a discussion, or don't bother posting here, ESPECIALLY in this subforum.

Thank you for your reasoning hef. That's how I feel. If your going to participate, there are better ways, then to declare yourself indisputably correct, based on your own twisted logic that your theory is somehow  the only conclusion possible.

[Seventh Son]

I find it funny when you lash at religion for having infallible dogma when you act exactly the same.

And before you say anything, I'm not even religious.

[GuineaPig]

I don't think there's an atheist poster in this subforum that approves of ainamotore's posting style.

[Ħ]

I don't think there's an atheist poster in this subforum that approves of ainamotore's posting style.

Is it because he speaks in absolutes?

[Adami]

If you believe in the supernatural, we are not a match.


-God.

[Seventh Son]

I don't think there's an atheist poster in this subforum that approves of ainamotore's posting style.

Is it because he speaks in absolutes?

That and he's extremely arrogant and shows no regards for others. He even stated that he has no respect for others who are religious.

[GuineaPig]

I don't think there's an atheist poster in this subforum that approves of ainamotore's posting style.

Is it because he speaks in absolutes?

He doesn't contribute at all to discussion.  Coming in and saying "This is my view, it is fact" is not conducive to debate, let alone a respectful exchange of ideas.  It violates the basic idea behind a forum.

[Tick]

I don't think there's an atheist poster in this subforum that approves of ainamotore's posting style.

Is it because he speaks in absolutes?

He doesn't contribute at all to discussion.  Coming in and saying "This is my view, it is fact" is not conducive to debate, let alone a respectful exchange of ideas.  It violates the basic idea behind a forum.

Exactly.
Lets face it, when it comes to politics and religion people are going to have strong views, but they can't be made with RESPECT.
I try to post like that and on occasion I get aggravated and say stuff I regret. In those cases I usually apologize to whom I offend.

[Vivace]

Meanwhile, arguing the merits with many of the recent posts is counterproductive, as very little logic is displayed. The objections are largely emotional, and do not lend themselves to philosophical discussion.

I will agree that arguing with you seems counterproductive in that 1) you don't understand the terms you are arguing and 2) you cannot understand how your logic is flawed because you do not understand the terms you are arguing. Add this together and you get what is called the "invincibly ignorant". Those who refuse to actually "learn" about something because they are convinced it works in another way when in reality what they are creating is an arbitrary definition to explain something in a way that makes their argument work. If that's emotional, unphilosophical and showing little logic then I'm definitely wasting my time even trying to help clarify it.

[yeshaberto]

It is time to move back to the discussion of the OP

[ainamotore]

It is time to move back to the discussion of the OP

The answer to the original poster's question is, of course, straightforward.

Of course you can believe in the Supernatural, or God, or both without penalty or prejudice. Since it is belief we are talking about, no objectivity or reason or proof is necessary. All that is required is to make the emotional decision that objectivity will not be included in your criteria before committing to the belief. In other words, it's completely arbitrary.

Accordingly, a belief in God is irrelevant to believing in the supernatural. Basically you can do whatever you want, as there are no rules of logic that need be obeyed when you make the decision to engage in arbitrary belief.

So this is great if you want to embrance an Art Bell or the like, yet still want to feel agnosticky...