The Supernatural

[Ibrahim]

Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Veech

I'm assuming, of course, that the invisible world shares important overlapping similarities with that which is visible. In other words, speculations regarding that which cannot be seen ought to provide some form of explanatory power with respect to what we encounter on an everyday level.

But if this assumption already starts with a divergence ( visible vs. invisible) why would the dissimilarities end there?

[Ibrahim]

Quote Originally Posted by qcrisp

"The known is merely the fuel for the flames of imagination to consume."

Now i want to make a comic specifically to have this as the motto in front.

[ToALonelyPeace]

I believe in ecstasy, and I would like to believe in God-but I cannot.

This is due to reading St Teresa's Life and not Weird fiction, though I believe what happens in The Great God Pan is possible.

I feel I miss out a major part of life by my incapacity to comprehend everyone's Truth. The major one is God, and I cannot understand the idea, the desire, and the passions for him. I don't understand how any of these arise from a person's heart. Why do atheists clamor to disprove his existence, why do believers love him, and why do most people see him as the ultimate question? Perhaps I need a trigger to understand the taste for God, but I suspect such a trigger does not exist.

[Ibrahim]

Quote Originally Posted by ToALonelyPeace

I believe in ecstasy, and I would like to believe in God-but I cannot. This is due to reading St Teresa's Life and not Weird fiction, though I believe what happens in The Great God Pan is possible. I feel I miss out a major part of life by my incapacity to comprehend everyone's Truth. The major one is God, and I cannot understand the idea, the desire, and the passions for him. I don't understand how any of these arise from a person's heart. Why do atheists clamor to disprove his existence, why do believers love him, and why do most people see him as the ultimate question? Perhaps I need a trigger to understand the taste for God, but I suspect such a trigger does not exist.

I don't see how believing in god and desiring to believe in him are much different from one another... both stop short of knowing him.

I don't believe concretely in a god because I don't feel there is sufficient reason to commit to that belief, and mysticism makes more sense to me, but I'm certainly more open to its existence than I was, and I no longer believe religious people are less intelligent than atheists.

The online sceptic community contains more idiocy than my local church. I'm more open to the idea that sin leads to my unhappiness than videogame feminism, and Jesus Christ seems more admirable than Trump.

[Karnos]

Quote Originally Posted by James

The online sceptic community contains more idiocy than my local church. I'm more open to the idea that sin leads to my unhappiness than videogame feminism, and Jesus Christ seems more admirable than Trump.

Atheism is a respectable position to have, like any other, as long as the atheist in question reasoned his or her way into it and avoids proselytizing about it. That has to be the weirdest of religions: militant atheism.

But I don't think most atheists have reasoned their way into it. Not the online bunch. We live in a cynical age, and atheism is the easiest, must edgy, way to be a nonconformist.

I cannot talk about every atheist online, but the bulk of the ones I have met, both online and out in the open, belong to the lines of disgruntled ex Christians. There are exceptions, of course, and I am friends with a couple of them. We avoid talking about these issues and we are fine with it. It is the ones who are convinced that they are waging a cultural war against obscurantism that are the problem. The whole lot of them. They are in no way different to the Christians of the thirteen century, who would swallow up anything the figure of authority with a funny hat said. Modern online atheists are no different. And hey, they even have their silly hats as well .

[Robert Adam Gilmour]

I don't think those guys are very representative of atheists and they tend to be quite right wing. For atheists like myself it just doesn't come up very often because it isn't interesting or unusual. Just like I don't announce to people that I'm heterosexual.

[Mr. Veech]

Quote Originally Posted by Mithras

Religious people who deny the influences of other traditions are far worse than edgy atheists. There would be no Judeo-Christian/Abrahamic heritage without influences from Greek philosophy, Zoroastrianism, and Mithraism (this particular one in the case of Christianity only). Other influences most likely range from Assyrian Mesopotamian religion to Egyptian Cult of Osiris, but I have not researched those as much. The narrative of religions have far-reaching influences beyond social control and personal belief or disbelief; their narratives and mythos alter the common metaphors people use to make sense of interpersonal relationships or man's relationship to the world. The ideas of mutual reciprocity and other virtues, for example, originates from ancient religions, and they still have relevance to this day. It is not possible to reconcile normativity with naturalism, so the effects of religions on ethos are still important to study, irrespective of their metaphysical validity.

I suppose a religious person might respond by claiming that it's more accurate to say that the aforementioned traditions, while playing a significant role in the development of the Judeo-Christian/Abrahamic tradition, are incomplete insofar as they only point to the truth. They might say it's a question of causality. If so they might claim that the Judeo-Christian/Abrahamic tradition is the final cause of the preceding traditions in the same way that the flower is the cause of the seed.

I asked a classroom full of students a specific question with a specific answer. The first round of answers I received were close but not the exact answer I wanted to hear. Finally, someone eventually raised their hand and told me the exact answer to the question.

[Mr. Veech]

Quote Originally Posted by Mithras

Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Veech I suppose a religious person might respond by claiming that it's more accurate to say that the aforementioned traditions, while playing a significant role in the development of Judeo-Christian beliefs, are incomplete insofar as they only point to the truth. Yes, that is a good response. So long as they acknowledge the significant role of other religions in the development of their own, unlike many others. No religion has ever developed in a vacuum, but they still possess crucial differences, true.

You know, of course, that I'm playing devil's advocate. I'd actually love to hear a response from someone who is actually religious. They might be able to provide a better response.

[Mr. Veech]

Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Veech

Quote Originally Posted by Mithras Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Veech I suppose a religious person might respond by claiming that it's more accurate to say that the aforementioned traditions, while playing a significant role in the development of Judeo-Christian beliefs, are incomplete insofar as they only point to the truth. Yes, that is a good response. So long as they acknowledge the significant role of other religions in the development of their own, unlike many others. No religion has ever developed in a vacuum, but they still possess crucial differences, true. You know, of course, that I'm playing devil's advocate. I'd actually love to hear a response from someone who is actually religious. They might be able to provide a better response.

My prayers were quickly answered:

“I do not see why certain other forms of religion cannot approach (through prefigurement of, or subsequent influence by,) the final truth of traditional Catholicism. The central event in the history of mankind is the Incarnation; this is the axis upon which mankind’s eternal destiny turns. The attitude one takes to that event colours all other assent propositions that follow from it." ~ M.S.

I believe this a claim similar to the one I gave before, but with a bit more finesse. His use of the term "final truth" is, I believe, equivalent to my own use of "final cause."