Richard Dawkins

How can you assert that "there are no ghosts so why believe in them" and yet believe in aliens that you have never seen nor have any factual evidence of?

How can you be sure that there are no alien ghosts? Just because there are no ghosts on this planet...

Your constant restatement that belief in the supernatural is for fools has never once been supported. You believe in a whole load of supernatural, unprovable, unevidenced things which you presumably do not consider to be "for fools" (because you continue to use them to support your arguments). I think you're full of it.

 

Again aliens and the supernatural two very different things.

I don't believe in a "load" of supernatural never stated I did.

If you want to call me a fool for believing in the POSSIBILITY of alien life go ahead.

It doesen't bother me.

 

Total evil is the complete lack of any good. You said, "But if you believe in good or evil I can tell you how to convince someone that religion is totally evil". I do not think you have shown me how to prove religion is totally evil. I think any evil is something that basically takes any dignity away from human life and creation (not in the Genesis sense, but in the sense of things that exist).

I like this definition of a general evil: "It is evident again that all evil is essentially negative and not positive; i.e. it consists not in the acquisition of anything, but in the loss or deprivation of something necessary for perfection" http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm

No. I think that there is empathy ingraned into al people. We choose to do any evil that we do. Total evil does exist in the universe, but I do not think that people are capable of total evil. Even Hitler was not totally evil. That isn't to say that someone cannot commit evil acts. Murder and rape for example are evil acts. Theft is an evil act. That isn't to say that evil cannot be rationalized, but it is still evil no matter your excuse.

I also think that we are not put on earth do accomplish something as this implies. Even if there was someone who commited total evil, they do not exist only to commit total evil.

Luckily I have not faced total evil. I do believe in the possibility of it, but not in humans. Humans can commit an evil, but cannot be total evil (at least not that I've experienced).

Doubt what, in total evil? nope...

When has anyone here tried to say that God is a fact. Most of us have just been saying that religion doesn't cause people to murder.

I don't say God exists without a doubt, it just makes most sense to me...

Double standard...

 

If you truly believe in the supernatural we are at ends.

If you believe in the supernatural I think you have been fooled to put it lightly as possible.

 

Why? My belief in the "supernatural" is just like your belief in aliens. Based on our own observations about the universe, but we have no direct evidence.

PS- I added more to my post above.

Again, how am I fooled. Our beloiefs on aliens and the "supernatural" are the exact same, only directed differently. Who has fooled me?

 

You have fooled yourself (to put it lightly), to answer your last question first.


I do not believe in the supernatural (that which can not be explained by man EVER)

I do believe in the UNKNOWN.

You from what I can tell believe in the literal definition of the supernatural I may be wrong on this your stance is so mottled it's hard to tell.

 

I am still discerning what I believe to be honest. I tend to fit into the catergory that the "supernatural" is a part of nature that we don't/cannot understand.

I am in constant change, I am continually thinking about the universe, existence, God, et cetera.

 

Well I say that's an excellent way to put it. :cheers2:

 

Yeah, Richard Dawkins has stated too, in a interview/debate/dialogue with Francis Collins and Time Magazine that the "supernatural" is a slap in the face to science because it puts up a wall that science cannot cross, or if we cannot explain something now then supernaturalism says that we should not investigate it. I disagree. It is our nature as humans, and dare I say God given nature to be curious. We naturally want to know as mnuch about the world as possible from the beginning of our lives. I want to know why we are here, I want to know how the universe started: so far we have hypotheses and theories. Some are good ("Big Bang", evolution), whilst others are not as good (6-day creation).

To be fair too, I offten wrestly with quandries such as the validity of miracles such as the virgin birth. But if we accept a God we cannot fully comprehend then there is the possibility for such things. But then have I just fell into a ever decreasing "god of the gaps"?

 

Anyone who would "accept" a god is a fool in my opinion.

 

I'm going to jump in here and agree with Rudenoodle about the difference between supernatural and aliens. I don't believe in the supernatural at all, and while I don't claim that aliens do in fact exist I do believe that they are more than likely to exist then not. This in my opinion is based only on the probabilities. The universe is a very large place with each galaxy made up of billions of stars and with the billions of galaxies that there are, and the time scale of the universe in the billions of years, it is highly improbable that there is only life living on one planet of one star during all those years. This is not to say that we will ever know one way or the other unless we can travel to other solar systems, and then only if we go to a great many and possibly spend lots of time looking for previous life forms on every planet that we happen to find.

 

I don't think there is a difference on the basis of a "supernatural" definition. By the few definitions in this thread, supernatural isn't nessecarily opposed to the natural order. If God or whatever is observable by science but just has not been so far, then aliens too are equally as probable (in terms of defining God as a being far beyond our capacity of understanding).

We as life are highly improbable, just as God is. I like Dawkins' line about being an athiest in most Gods, he just goes one more. You guys seem to believe in extreme probabilities--I just go one further.

 

We don't know exactly how "improbable" our existence actually is.

If time can be looked at as infinite then it is highly unlikely that we are the only living beings to ever exist when you take into account the trillions (probably more) of undiscovered solar systems if not galaxies in just the universe we currently inhabit.

Out of the ONE solar system we know that supports life ONE planet in it has intelligent life.

Again trillions and trillions (gabillions? j/k) of solar systems that are undiscovered, to say that you even sway to the side that suggests there is life in the universe other than our own puts you at ends with proven science but does not mean you believe in the supernatural.

I cant stress enough the SUPERNATURAL and the UNKNOWN are two entirely different topics.

 

Just for the record, you keep saying supernatural whilst I write "supernatiural". I do't acctually think that what is "supernatural" is above the natural. I believe that the "supernatural" is something natural that will really have no concept of or ability to understand.

And by your logic, if there are trillions and gazillions and gabillions of possibilities out there, then there is a possibility of intelligent life. And if we accept a multiverse theory (a plethora of other universes), as even Dawkins I think alludes to believing, then the possibilitys increase exponentially.

 

Same here, I like his voice hahaha

 

So instead of saying "unknown" you would rather say supernatiural?

Does it make you feel closer to the force to say that? I don't get it or see a difference.

I'll rephrase yet again, even if I met something that claimed to be a god and showed strange powerful unknown abilities I would still say the claim of divinity would be a pitiful excuse for an explanation.

There are things not known to mankind, but that's only because mankind has not had the chance or time to study them thoroughly .

There are no ghosts.

 

You are of course at liberty to call me whatever you like, but if you're doing so in the spirit of discussion, I would still be inclined to refer you back my previous statement, and ask exactly what is your justification for such a wholesale condemnation of my personality.

I think I have been quite reasonable, in providing simple rational arguments in my defence, and have not resorted to supernatural justifications for my opinions, which should make the post valid in any debate with an atheist, but it seems to me that you're ignoring what I said, in favour of calling me names.

Which is fine, if that's your intention. But I get the feeling that you're actually trying to engage in discourse.

So I repeat my original post to you

We have established that you think supernatural beliefs are foolish, something I don't begrudge you, but that isn't the main thrust of my argument.

 

What are you trying to say?

Only SOME belief in the supernatural is stupid?

What is the main "thrust" of your argument? To come into a supposed atheists thread and start talking about channeling karma through the human body?

 

Ok, well I guess you do kinda have me there. I will conceid defeat on this issue (of "supernatural"). I'll just admit I believe in the Transcendant Numinous.

I am fooled (by myself) and eradicating my beliefs will bring about a time of peace like the world has never seen. Too bad your mind is not as weak as some others, otherwise I could have fooled you too and then by making you read some books forced to to suicide bomb some abortion clinics. I am leaving now that I've been outed.

 

You are a strange, strange man. But it was nice debating with you.