Some vs Others

[cwes99_03]

Why the need throughout the scientific community to deny the existence of any possibility of a supernatural being? This is a discussion for those people who feel there is a need to deny the existence of supernatural (spirit) beings, and any others who have an honest opinion on why there might be a need to do so.

I have thoughts, but figure they will be expressed by others who respond.

Note: 1) This is not a discussion of why some people of a particular theology feel the need to deny another's theology (or philosophy).

2) If your answer is I am an atheist, then please respond with how your beliefs as an atheist require you to portray any thought of a deity as absurd. Remembering the original question, that as an atheist you deny the existence of the supernatural. If you are an atheist but do not deny the possibility of a supernatural being, then please hold your responses.

3) If you are of a particular theology please refrain from responding to certain posts that you will undoubtedly find innaccurate or failing to consider some points. Some initial input is necessary before that phase of the discussion should take place.

[InfiniteNow]

Hi cwes,

I see you've laid out some initial parameters for the discussion, which can help it stay focussed on point. I appreciate that, so thank you. I am looking for one point of clarification before everyone engages in the discussion.

Do you see this as a one way conversation, whereby your premise that science denies religion takes precedence, or would you be willing to discuss also the reciprocity involved where religion often tries to deny science?

Making sure everyone understands how the stage is set, that's all.


Cheers.

[cwes99_03]

My reply. The initial discussion that I expect would do the first, but in some ways touches on the second. If your answer is that (to paraphrase) "religion often tries to deny a scientific theory (or fact) and thus in kind I try to deny the existence of a deity." Then you have answered part one. Perhaps in a bit after more input has been received we can touch on that answer more in depth, perhaps even create a poll or something based on this thread.

I do not however want this to turn into a he said she said argument over things like evolution, that has and will continue to be discussed elsewhere.

[Southtown]

WELCOME BACK CWES! How's it feel to be resurrected?

My thoughts: science is a method. Theories and hypotheses must be validated. And no one knows how to test a god hypothesis, that I know of.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

If your answer is that (to paraphrase) "religion often tries to deny a scientific theory (or fact) and thus in kind I try to deny the existence of a deity."

Not really that response from the scientific community is "in kind," just that it works both ways. Pots calling kettles black more accurately captures the point I was making.

I do not however want this to turn into a he said she said argument over things like evolution...

Ditto.

[cwes99_03]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Not really that response from the scientific community is "in kind," just that it works both ways. Pots calling kettles black more accurately captures the point I was making.

I don't think that quite answers the original question. Why do some from the "denial of supernatural" side engage in such arguments? You say it is not simply because of a "return in kind" spirit, from your standpoint.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

Why do some from the "denial of supernatural" side engage in such arguments?

Well, like all others, I can only speak for myself, and cannot offer any valid points if I begin speaking with the voice of some abstract entity...

My reason for, to use your terms, "denying the supernatural" is that I believe it will make our world a better place if more people step outside of, what I can only describe as, this self-reinforcing delusion. Others may think differently, but I am but one man among billions at that is my standpoint.

I can equally well argue the positives of a religious following as I can the negatives, but I find when I take all religions and people in aggregate, the negatives gain the upper hand.

[cwes99_03]

Okay, so far we have:

1) science demands material proof of existence thus anything that cannot be materially seen (such as some spirit creatures are described as non-corporeal) cannot exist.

2) religion is a delusion (don't be a hater here, this is an honest opinion and deserves respect for its honesty), and as a delusion while there may be some positive aspects to deluding people in such a way the negatives of deluding (lieing) to people in such a way overpower the positives.

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

Okay, so far we have:

1) science demands material proof of existence thus anything that cannot be materially seen (such as some spirit creatures are described as non-corporeal) cannot exist.

"Cannot exist" is an overstatement; it is also theory to be verified.

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

2) religion is a delusion (don't be a hater here, this is an honest opinion and deserves respect for its honesty), and as a delusion while there may be some positive aspects to deluding people in such a way the negatives of deluding (lieing) to people in such a way overpower the positives.

Psychology. Ought to make for an interesting debate. =)

[Edella]

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

Okay, so far we have:

1) science demands material proof of existence thus anything that cannot be materially seen (such as some spirit creatures are described as non-corporeal) cannot exist.

I'm not sure where you got that one from cwes, Southtown didn't suggest it.

Why the need throughout the scientific community to deny the existence of any possibility of a supernatural being?

I honestly don't see this happening in the scientific community. Who denies any possibility of a supernatural being? The science community at large?

If you are an atheist but do not deny the possibility of a supernatural being, then please hold your responses.

Sorry.