Question for Atheists...

[Exaltist Ethan]

I'm going to answer this question as someone who 1 - believes in God but 2 - doesn't believe in the "super"-natural.

I've never believed in the supernatural, and honestly, I believe the very idea of the supernatural separates yourself from God. Yes I believe there are things outside this Universe - I just don't call them "super" natural. I think everything is natural. The difference I have understand between nature and reality is that there is only one reality while every Universe has its own natures in them. Therefore, instead of understanding God as the nature of this Universe, or the supernatural, I lump it all together and say that I believe in one reality and this reality is God. There should be no separation between the two, which is exactly what both naturalists and supernaturalists tend to do.

 

[viole]

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

Naturalists, I would say. A proper superset of the set of Atheists.

ciao

- viole

 

[ADigitalArtist]

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

Naturalists, I would say. A proper superset of the set of Atheists.

ciao

- viole

In fairness naturalism is a pretty broad term in philosophy. Not even excluding everyone who believes in the supernatural as some methodological naturalists like Gould. Since methodological naturalism is about processes like empiricism being the best way to gain information about the material, but not to the exclusion of the spiritual as per how dualists see it.

If you want an even narrower philosophy, you might say metaphysical naturalism. But even then they debate at where the boundaries of 'natural' is, and what is and isn't derivative of matter.

 

[1213]

...Believing in the supernatural is not rational but at one time, ....

Have you heard of Plato's cave allegory? Are the people watching the shadows rational? Is all innovation actually irrational, because it is seeing things that doesn't exist?

 

[Nakosis]

Have you heard of Plato's cave allegory? Are the people watching the shadows rational? Is all innovation actually irrational, because it is seeing things that doesn't exist?
View attachment 78653

Sure, spirituality sees shadows on the wall while the scientist leaves to cave to go out and investigate regardless of how much the sun hurts their eyes.

 

[HonestJoe]

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

Why do you need one? Why do you need to separate people on that basis? What are you actually trying to say?

 

[PureX]

Sure, spirituality sees shadows on the wall while the scientist leaves to cave to go out and investigate regardless of how much the sun hurts their eyes.

Some philosophers would pose the idea that the physicality you presume to be source of those shadows is itself just a reflection of the metaphysical realm that give it order, shape, and purpose. The story of Plato's cave is about discovering greater levels of awareness and being willing to embrace it when it happens.

 

[Nakosis]

Why do you need one? Why do you need to separate people on that basis? What are you actually trying to say?

IMO, when you want to communicate an idea one ought to try to be as concise as possible in the words they use.

 

[Nakosis]

Some philosophers would pose the idea that the physicality you presume to be source of those shadows is itself just a reflection of the metaphysical realm that give it order, shape, and purpose. The story of Plato's cave is about discovering greater levels of awareness and being willing to embrace it when it happens.

Ok, so presumably one of the prisoners manages to escape to see the "world" outside. Don't you think one of these escape prisoners would have thought to bring back a tree branch, a leaf something to physical that the folks still trapped in the cave could examine for themselves?

Whereas, what have scientists being doing for years? Bringing back evidence of what they have discovered.

And, do you really mean to say, you think Plato made this allegory trying to convince people to believe in ghosts?

 

[PureX]

Ok, so presumably one of the prisoners manages to escape to see the "world" outside. Don't you think one of these escape prisoners would have thought to bring back a tree branch, a leaf something to physical that the folks still trapped in the cave could examine for themselves?

Whereas, what have scientists being doing for years? Bringing back evidence of what they have discovered.

And, do you really mean to say, you think Plato made this allegory trying to convince people to believe in ghosts?

The point of the story is that people get stuck on their own evidences, and presumed truths, and can't then accept the awakening when it come.

And some are just as stuck on science as those who they are trying to free from superstition.

 

[Nakosis]

The point of the story is that people get stuck on their own evidences, and presumed truths, and can't then accept the awakening when it come.

And some are just as stuck on science as those who they are trying to free from superstition.

The why for importance of evidence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The point of the story is that people get stuck on their own evidences, and presumed truths, and can't then accept the awakening when it come.

And some are just as stuck on science as those who they are trying to free from superstition.

The point I've always taken from the story is one about hubris: the person stepping out of the cave, who knows that people have been deliberately fooling him for his whole life, squinting as he sees sunlight for the first time, overcome with glare and spots from the unfamiliar brightness, deciding that now what his senses perceive is reliable and he no longer has to worry about people trying to fool him.

 

[F1fan]

​

What caused you to stop believing in the supernatural?

I never really believed. My experience as a child was having doubts about what others told me about a God and Jesus exxisting. What gave me doubts was how the Christians around me had all these ideals about how to be and live, but they didn't follow these ideals. That suggested to me that they didn't really believe all that much.

I think there are many people who don;t really believe in a supernatural, thye just go with what others around them say, and are by effect comply without using reasoning skill.

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.

Members of social groups are human, not Vulcans. We humans evolved to conform to social norms which offered an advantage in survival tens of thousands of years ago. In the 21st century we don't need this to survive, and there are many more tribes to chose from. There are more rational tribes, but also more irrational tribes, like Qanon, or MAGA.

There really isn't an emphasis on public schools to reach critical thinking. Most anyone learns to think (not to be confused as reasoning, which is skilled thining) when they acquire language and the rules of that language, which is a basic form of semiotics. There isn't much emphasis on emotional intelligence either, so we humans are largely left to the fate of our parents and whatever type of society we live in.

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

Well there is evidence of a biological component, roughly called "wired for God", which is estimated to be about 85% of humans.

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

Same here. I was 8 when I was first aware of not being totally convinced that religion was valid. The ideas just didn't add up.

 

[F1fan]

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.

In essence the way supernatural is used and defined means that category of phenomenon are synonymous with imaginary. Oddly if a God were to exist it would be a natural phenomenon.

 

[F1fan]

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.

Thus, imaginary.

I'm going to answer this question as someone who 1 - believes in God but 2 - doesn't believe in the "super"-natural.

I've never believed in the supernatural, and honestly, I believe the very idea of the supernatural separates yourself from God.

Why would that be the case? If a God actually exists why would you miscategorizing it as "supernatural" force it from being connected to a human? That still suggests God is an imagined phenomenon, not an actual and indevendent phenomenon that can interact with humans regardless how it is categorized.

It's like saying you have a car, but if you call it a truck you can't drive it. No, call it a tree, or a dog, or a ham sandwich, the car still exists and you can drive it. What you call it doesn't change what it is.

Yes I believe there are things outside this Universe - I just don't call them "super" natural. I think everything is natural.

Things that exist would be natural.

The difference I have understand between nature and reality is that there is only one reality while every Universe has its own natures in them.

This is a baseless claim. And one that goes against the laws of physics.

Therefore, instead of understanding God as the nature of this Universe, or the supernatural, I lump it all together and say that I believe in one reality and this reality is God.

This looks to be an illusion, not any sort of factual understanding. Your wording, and thinking, appears to be mental gymnastics that have succeded in self-deception. Have you asked yourself why you want to think a God exists at all? Who told you a God exists? Why did you adopt this word in the first place?

There should be no separation between the two, which is exactly what both naturalists and supernaturalists tend to do.

You are trying to validate an idea of God by attacching it to real phenomenon. That is deceptive and not rational. Are you not aware of you doing this?

 

[HonestJoe]

IMO, when you want to communicate an idea one ought to try to be as concise as possible in the words they use.

Sure, but I'm not sure what idea you'd be communicating. The distinction between people who believe at least one thing that could be labelled supernatural and the people who don't believe any doesn't strike me as especially significant to anything.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What caused you to stop believing in the supernatural?

It's very hard to remember what one believed at a very young age, and in my case, a somewhat older age because as an abused child, I repressed much as a defense mechanism (that's in my childhood records from the institution that helped me heal).

Still, I don't ever remember a time when I believed in any sort of a god, and certainly not the Christian one that was the general belief all around me.

As to what you might call "supernatural," that's never been part of my beliefs, either. When I was young and saw magicians and mind-readers and so on, I always reasoned that there had to be an explanation -- even if I didn't now what it was -- and if that was the case it had to be natural. Just unknown (but not unknowable) to me.

As my child pshychiatrist once said, "he defends himself with rationalization and intellectualization."

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

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.

This is vaguely insulting to people who accept that there's more to the world than the physical. It has nothing to do with your ability to reason or use logic. It would be one thing if the "supernatural" was conclusively proven to not exist, but that's not the case. It's a difference of opinion and experience. It has nothing to do with your intellect. I just wanted to point that out.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

You are trying to validate an idea of God by attacching it to real phenomenon. That is deceptive and not rational. Are you not aware of you doing this?

I'm a pantheist F1fan, I have said this numerous times in my posts, I create threads about my beliefs in pantheism and my signature also says that I am a pantheist. I realize that this very thread title is Question for Atheists but I wanted to reply as a pantheist.

 

[F1fan]

I'm a pantheist F1fan, I have said this numerous times in my posts, I create threads about my beliefs in pantheism and my signature also says that I am a pantheist. I realize that this very thread title is Question for Atheists but I wanted to reply as a pantheist.

Being a pantheist doesn’t mean your ideas have automatic validity. It’s still a form of theism, and there are assumptions your views have that aren’t based in fact.