• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Supernatural [W:1230]

shagg said:
I don't care if the question is loaded, it exposes a flaw in your position that warrants discussion and/or clarification, and that you apparently want to pretend doesn't exist. But I need you to get down off the fence and make up your mind as to what your arguing for, because every time I try and interpret the position behind your posts, you insist I'm wrong and putting words in your mouth, and instruct me not to do so. So for ****s sake, take a position. If your argument was supportable you wouldn't have to worry about "loaded" questions.

You almost seem to say, without saying it, that you are not implying that made up things can't exist. Couldn't you have simply said no? Can I proceed as if you had answered no? Or are you just realizing that you either have to betray the spirit of your OP and answer no, or go with yes, which you've already stated is easily disproven? Loaded or not, it's a legitimate question. If you can not answer, then you have nothing here.

And my point about philosophy is that there are certain standards when it comes to arguments. "That's ridiculous" does not make the cut. If it's ridiculous you should be able to explain why, in a way that isn't just an extended rephrasing of "That's ridiculous".
Click to expand...

It only exposes a flaw if I am saying what you want me to say. But I am not so all is good.
 
soot said:
Like I said, it doesn't bother me at all.

Why does it bother you that others would make claims that you're unwilling to believe, or incapable of believing?



Not at all.

I said that you're a bully, and that's sad because it's coming from a place of broken emptiness, and that I'm praying for you.

Where in that do you detect a damaged ego or hypersensitivity?

Understand, you're not hurting me at all, not scaring me, not making me the least bit uncomfortable.

I'm talking about how sad it is that you feel the need to run other people down, I'm not claiming that I'm sad because you make a game of trying to run faith down.

Do you see the difference?

Whether you do or don't, I'll be praying that at some point you gain the ability to do so.
Click to expand...

Are you here to convert me?
 
Has anyone seen the TV show Supernatural? I'm looking for a series to download and watch and it's been on for 11 seasons.
 
shagg said:
I am not certain the supernatural do not exist.

I'm not suggesting stocking up on garlic and holywater or silver bullets. I don't let the remote possibility influence my day to day decisions. But I am not absolutely certain, no.
Click to expand...

Ok you are not certain. What if we used another term for describing the supernatural? hocus-pocus. Can I be certain that hocus-pocus isnt just imagination?
If you feel that hocus-pocus/the supernatural is a legitimate argument then by all means explain how? Until then I reject it for being ridiculous.
 
Supernatural is a product of human imagination. Reality just is. The natural world is real. The supernatural world is not. It is the same as mythology and stories. We like making up metaphors in a vain attempt to give our finite physical existence an imagined deeper meaning. The human ego does not easily accept our ultimate meaninglessness.
 
grip said:
Has anyone seen the TV show Supernatural? I'm looking for a series to download and watch and it's been on for 11 seasons.
Click to expand...

I thought it jumped the shark around season 6-7, which is when we dropped it.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
You cannot know anything about the supernatural, so therefor whoever invokes the supernatural is making it up.

I suspect that I know where you are headed with that. But I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

Why can't one know anything about the supernatural ? Are you claiming it does not exist and all imaginary, or conversely, once an aspect the supernatural is known, it is no longer supernatural ?
 
Dibbler said:
Why can't one know anything about the supernatural ? Are you claiming it does not exist and all imaginary, or conversely, once an aspect the supernatural is known, it is no longer supernatural ?
Click to expand...


I've seen and experienced it, I just can't reproduce the experience for anyone else. It was awesome though, want to hear about it?
 
grip said:
I've seen and experienced it, I just can't reproduce the experience for anyone else. It was awesome though, want to hear about it?
Click to expand...

Yes I would.
 
grip said:
So, until then it was view worthy?
Click to expand...

Yeah, it was fine. It was really a good show, especially those episodes that they didn't take themselves particularly seriously. However, where I think the show went off the rails, and this is slightly spoilery so don't read any further if you care, is where they introduced the war in heaven or whatever it was. Before that, Sam and Dean actually mattered. They had a direct effect on the supernatural critters that they fought. After the war though, they were irrelevant, they were just pawns in a much larger game and they didn't make a difference, they were only as effective as whatever larger powers wanted them to be and were on their side.

After that, I stopped caring. Just my opinion, of course.
 
Dibbler said:
Why can't one know anything about the supernatural ? Are you claiming it does not exist and all imaginary, or conversely, once an aspect the supernatural is known, it is no longer supernatural ?
Click to expand...

Things in nature are not super.
 
grip said:
I've seen and experienced it, I just can't reproduce the experience for anyone else. It was awesome though, want to hear about it?
Click to expand...

You cannot demonstrate that you've experienced it though, you simply experienced something you cannot explain and you are arbitrarily assigning the supernatural as the cause of your experience.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
The same way that one can deduce a lie. Or how us adults know that a imaginary friend is imaginary. Claims of the ridiculous. unbelievable stories.
Click to expand...

Like me, it appears that you do not accept claims, especially extraordinary claims, unless there is reason for justified belief. It is rational, logical and in accord with the scientific method to reject claims made without evidence ergo, it is easy to come to a rational, logical and scientific conclusion that claims of the supernatural made without evidence can be rejected. The claim that, 'gods exist' has no evidence that cannot be explained by delusion therefore I reject the positive assertion.
 
William Rea said:
Like me, it appears that you do not accept claims, especially extraordinary claims, unless there is reason for justified belief. It is rational, logical and in accord with the scientific method to reject claims made without evidence ergo, it is easy to come to a rational, logical and scientific conclusion that claims of the supernatural made without evidence can be rejected. The claim that, 'gods exist' has no evidence that cannot be explained by delusion therefore I reject the positive assertion.
Click to expand...

By that same token...any assertion that there are no gods can be rejected.

But atheists like to suppose they are being rational, logical, and scientific when they make the positive assertion that there are no gods.
 
Frank Apisa said:
By that same token...any assertion that there are no gods can be rejected.

But atheists like to suppose they are being rational, logical, and scientific when they make the positive assertion that there are no gods.
Click to expand...
Best to not confuse rejections of claims with claims themselves.

Where absence of evidence does indeed not constitute evidence of absence, the logical fallacy that many fall prey to in conclusions they draw from this simple truth, lies in presuming that thus evidence of presence has been established.

Fellow atheists in my circles (not that anyone is interested in forming any of those) do not make the assertions outlined, we just reject the assertions of gods existing and live without any such concept (let alone its subject).

Leaving others to drown themselves in whatever sophistries they choose.
 
Chagos said:
Best to not confuse rejections of claims with claims themselves.

Where absence of evidence does indeed not constitute evidence of absence, the logical fallacy that many fall prey to in conclusions they draw from this simple truth, lies in presuming that thus evidence of presence has been established.

Fellow atheists in my circles (not that anyone is interested in forming any of those) do not make the assertions outlined, we just reject the assertions of gods existing and live without any such concept (let alone its subject).

Leaving others to drown themselves in whatever sophistries they choose.
Click to expand...

I am not talking about "atheists."

My comment was: By that same token...any assertion that there are no gods can be rejected.

If you want to comment on that...comment. If you want to sidetrack so that you can talk about "others" drowning themselves in sophistries...do it with someone else.

You are correct that assertions that there are gods...or that there is at least one GOD...or even "it is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are none"...CAN BE REJECTED OUT OF HAND. They are nothing more than guesses...and blind guesses at that.

So can any assertion that there are no gods...or that "it is more likely there are none than that there is at least one." They also are nothing more than blind guesses.

SOME atheists, including SEVERAL here in DP...DO assert that there are no gods...and also assert that it is IMPOSSIBLE for gods to exist.
 
_Sal said:
what would be their benefit in holding such a belief in your opinion
Click to expand...

I have no idea, Sal. I see no benefit from it.

But if someone DOES assert there are no gods...or that it is impossible for gods to exist...I will challenge.
 
Frank Apisa said:
I have no idea, Sal. I see no benefit from it.

But if someone DOES assert there are no gods...or that it is impossible for gods to exist...I will challenge.
Click to expand...
I don't understand how one can argue vehemently against while mocking the other side and not understand their position is equally tenous
 
Frank Apisa said:
I am not talking about "atheists."
Click to expand...
Then why bring them up?
Frank Apisa said:
~..................But atheists like to suppose they are being rational, logical, and scientific when they make the positive assertion that there are no gods.
Click to expand...

My comment was: By that same token...any assertion that there are no gods can be rejected.
Click to expand...
graced with the above.
If you want to comment on that...comment.
Click to expand...
If you want to take the trouble to properly read, you will find that I did precisely that.
If you want to sidetrack so that you can talk about "others" drowning themselves in sophistries...do it with someone else.
Click to expand...
I'll do it with whoever I please. Your only call in the matter is whether you acknowledge or ignore, not where or with whom I raise any matter of my choosing.

As for the rest of your post, that's already been said and if you took the trouble to try and understand the stance I stated, you'd find that I see nothing to argue there. My interjection into all of this was driven by your post that I responded to.

William Rea made no claim whatsoever that there are no gods so it remains mysterious what relevance lies in introducing that some atheists do make it.
You are correct...................
Click to expand...
when I succeed in staying focussed, that's usually the result.

Oversized fonts and capitalizing do not make substitute for credible argument BTW. All they do is demonstrate the need to shout.

Just saying.
 
_Sal said:
I don't understand how one can argue vehemently against while mocking the other side and not understand their position is equally tenous
Click to expand...

I agree.

Assertions of "there are no gods" or "it is more likely there are no gods than that there are"...are merely guesses about REALITY.

So too are assertions of "there is a god" or "it is more likely there is a god than that there are none."
 
Chagos said:
Then why bring them up?

graced with the above. If you want to take the trouble to properly read, you will find that I did precisely that. I'll do it with whoever I please. Your only call in the matter is whether you acknowledge or ignore, not where or with whom I raise any matter of my choosing.

As for the rest of your post, that's already been said and if you took the trouble to try and understand the stance I stated, you'd find that I see nothing to argue there. My interjection into all of this was driven by your post that I responded to.

William Rea made no claim whatsoever that there are no gods so it remains mysterious what relevance lies in introducing that some atheists do make it. when I succeed in staying focussed, that's usually the result.

Oversized fonts and capitalizing do not make substitute for credible argument BTW. All they do is demonstrate the need to shout.

Just saying.
Click to expand...

Anyone who asserts there are no gods...or it is more likely that there are no gods...is merely sharing a blind guess about REALITY.

That is my position.

If you have a problem with it...tell me what the problem is and I will set you on the right path.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom