Question for Atheists...

[Nakosis]

What caused you to stop believing in the supernatural?

Believing in the supernatural is not rational but at one time, I couldn't see that. It seemed the most rational thing in the world to believe in the supernatural. I did so without question. Rational meaning to develop your thoughts based on reason and logic. I suppose I lack a rational mind but didn't know it. The only requirement to be rational, I thought, was to have a brain.

Or perhaps you never believed in them. Good for you. You were born with a more rational mind.

I suspect I kept asking why and how. Perhaps that simply causes one's mind to become more rational overtime.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

View attachment 78617​

What caused you to stop believing in the supernatural?

Believing in the supernatural is not rational but at one time, I couldn't see that. It seemed the most rational thing in the world to believe in the supernatural. I did so without question. Rational meaning to develop your thoughts based on reason and logic. I suppose I lack a rational mind but didn't know it. The only requirement to be rational, I thought, was to have a brain.

Or perhaps you never believed in them. Good for you. You were born with a more rational mind.

I suspect I kept asking why and how. Perhaps that simply causes one's mind to become more rational overtime.

I'm not sure "supernatural" is a coherent concept.

That being said, I can't remember ever believing in gods, but I believed in psychic powers for a while. Once when I was a kid, I visualized my parents driving home. Just as I saw them in my mind's eye turning the corner to come into view, there they were. That incident convinced me for a long time that I had some sort of psychic powers; I rationalized all the misses afterward by deciding that my powers were "raw" and had to be honed and trained somehow.

As for gods, probably the thing that inoculated me the most was getting REALLY into Greek mythology when I was 9 or so. I loved the stories, but never approached them as something I ought to seriously believe. When I started running into devoutly religious peers (around age 13-14), I saw their myths through the same lens.

 

[icehorse]

I'm guessing that in this thread you're roughly equating "supernatural" with "religious god"?

To me, those are very different concepts. I stopped believing in religious gods when I was a kid, maybe 10 or 12?

But supernatural is harder to pin down. To a person from 100 years ago, a smart phone might well be seen as supernatural. So maybe supernatural means "not currently explainable"?

 

[Mock Turtle]

I think I looked into the supernatural as a subject after I had mostly given up on religions and God, and such seemed just as unnatural as so many religious beliefs. No evidence - in my life and as to scientific opinion in general - so why would I believe in such?

PS But given the nature of Quantum Physics, I obviously know that I will never know what I might want to know.

 

[viole]

What caused you to stop believing in the supernatural?

Not all Atheists are naturalists. Some believe in a supernatural godless reality. Therefore, that question is applicable only to naturalism.

ciao

- viole

 

[HonestJoe]

What caused you to stop believing in the supernatural?

Nobody really believes in "the supernatural". Lots of people belief in individual ideas of concepts which can be put under the broad category of "the supernatural", but there are so many different things that could, and many of them are directly contradictory.

It's a bit like asking why you think "teams" is going to win the next Superbowl (note that I didn't even say "Football teams" ).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not all Atheists are naturalists. Some believe in a supernatural godless reality. Therefore, that question is applicable only to naturalism.

ciao

- viole

It's not even really applicable to them.

I find it interesting - and maybe a bit self-damning - how people who believe in "the supernatural" address the dichotomy between naturalism and whatever they believe in.

Really, it shouldn't be a matter of epistemology at all. All being a naturalist entails is putting all the things you believe in into one category ("natural"), while being a "supernaturalist" entails putting the things you believe in into two categories ("natural" and "supernatural"). Nothing in this speaks at all to what a person should believe in.

If something "supernatural" were to have convincing evidence, a naturalist would believe in it, but just call it "natural."

Whenever we get into these discussions, the people advocating for the supernatural always seem to just take it as a given that their bar for what they'll accept is lower than that of the naturalists, and anything they're calling "supernatural" falls below the naturalists' bar.

It's odd coming from people who apparently believe in this stuff sincerely.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I was a Christian from about 8 or 9 to about 16. But I got way more out of the community then I ever did the faith. I can't really place when I stopped believing in God's because I'm not sure if I ever started. But as far as the supernatural outside gods go, the church I was in didn't really believe in much of that. Being one of the rare Christian faiths that don't believe in souls as a nebulous non corporeal entity, but just the literal breath and life of the body.

I've never really believed in ghosts or magic or astrology. Though I've seen thr utility of ritual and self reflection.

 

[Heyo]

Nobody really believes in "the supernatural". Lots of people belief in individual ideas of concepts which can be put under the broad category of "the supernatural", but there are so many different things that could, and many of them are directly contradictory.

It's a bit like asking why you think "teams" is going to win the next Superbowl (note that I didn't even say "Football teams" ).

It's a bit like asking "Do you believe in god?".

 

[lukethethird]

Supporting supernatural beliefs made me feel stupid.

 

[Nakosis]

I'm guessing that in this thread you're roughly equating "supernatural" with "religious god"?

To me, those are very different concepts. I stopped believing in religious gods when I was a kid, maybe 10 or 12?

But supernatural is harder to pin down. To a person from 100 years ago, a smart phone might well be seen as supernatural. So maybe supernatural means "not currently explainable"?

What I mean by supernatural would be anything causality which did not consist of natural(non physical) causes.
Or perhaps causes which can't be supported by physical evidence.
But I get your point. Kind of difficult to create an all inclusive set of what is supernatural.

 

[Nakosis]

Not all Atheists are naturalists. Some believe in a supernatural godless reality. Therefore, that question is applicable only to naturalism.

ciao

- viole

What would be a better name/label for people who don't accept supernatural explanations?

 

[Twilight Hue]

View attachment 78617​

What caused you to stop believing in the supernatural?

Believing in the supernatural is not rational but at one time, I couldn't see that. It seemed the most rational thing in the world to believe in the supernatural. I did so without question. Rational meaning to develop your thoughts based on reason and logic. I suppose I lack a rational mind but didn't know it. The only requirement to be rational, I thought, was to have a brain.

Or perhaps you never believed in them. Good for you. You were born with a more rational mind.

I suspect I kept asking why and how. Perhaps that simply causes one's mind to become more rational overtime.

I would love to see the supernatural. As long as nothing is there to show for it, I will regard it as hogwash as interesting and compelling as the paranormal is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What I mean by supernatural would be anything causality which did not consist of natural(non physical) causes.

How are you defining "physical" in order to differentiate the "non-physical" from it?

For me, the physical is defined descriptively: anything that happens in reality is physical.

Or perhaps causes which can't be supported by physical evidence.

What's the difference between "physical evidence" and just "evidence"?

 

[Nakosis]

It's not even really applicable to them.

I find it interesting - and maybe a bit self-damning - how people who believe in "the supernatural" address the dichotomy between naturalism and whatever they believe in.

Really, it shouldn't be a matter of epistemology at all. All being a naturalist entails is putting all the things you believe in into one category ("natural"), while being a "supernaturalist" entails putting the things you believe in into two categories ("natural" and "supernatural"). Nothing in this speaks at all to what a person should believe in.

If something "supernatural" were to have convincing evidence, a naturalist would believe in it, but just call it "natural."

Whenever we get into these discussions, the people advocating for the supernatural always seem to just take it as a given that their bar for what they'll accept is lower than that of the naturalists, and anything they're calling "supernatural" falls below the naturalists' bar.

It's odd coming from people who apparently believe in this stuff sincerely.

Hmm... perhaps I should address them as naturalists instead of atheists. I'd suppose an atheist could still believe in ghosts.

I just kind of figure once you stop believing in one supernatural entity, it's not that far from disbelieving in any supernatural entities.

 

[Nakosis]

How are you defining "physical" in order to differentiate the "non-physical" from it?

For me, the physical is defined descriptively: anything that happens in reality is physical.



What's the difference between "physical evidence" and just "evidence"?

Physical is anything which can be detected with the senses or affects something which can be detected by our human senses.
My current working axiom.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hmm... perhaps I should address them as naturalists instead of atheists. I'd suppose an atheist could still believe in ghosts.

Naturalists can still believe in ghosts; they'd just consider the ghosts to be physical.

I just kind of figure once you stop believing in one supernatural entity, it's not that far from disbelieving in any supernatural entities.

... but this wouldn't be true if any supernatural entities had anything to support their existence.

If I had to infer a definition of "supernatural" from how people use the term, it would be "stuff that doesn't seem likely to be real, but that some people take as real anyway because they're personally invested in it."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Physical is anything which can be detected with the senses or affects something which can be detected by our human senses.
My current working axiom.

People claim to see ghosts. Are you saying ghosts are physical or that these people are wrong?

 

[PureX]

The "supernatural" by definition would defy or transcend the physical limitations of nature. But we don't know what the physical limitations of nature, are. So we can't know if somerthing is supernatural or not.

 

[ChristineM]

View attachment 78617​

What caused you to stop believing in the supernatural?

Believing in the supernatural is not rational but at one time, I couldn't see that. It seemed the most rational thing in the world to believe in the supernatural. I did so without question. Rational meaning to develop your thoughts based on reason and logic. I suppose I lack a rational mind but didn't know it. The only requirement to be rational, I thought, was to have a brain.

Or perhaps you never believed in them. Good for you. You were born with a more rational mind.

I suspect I kept asking why and how. Perhaps that simply causes one's mind to become more rational overtime.

I grew up