Non-theists demands for 'evidence' bore some people.

[grizzlyman]

There are two main reasons why the constant demands for 'evidence' of supernatural events bore some people, and frustrate others:

1. Academically qualified theists are tied to the Christian status quo, while the less qualified demonstrate their inability to rationalize by retreating from any discussion muttering "You don’t understand"...
2. The second reason is perhaps a little more frustrating: Non-theists generally consider themselves to be rational people, yet the term 'supernatural' implies an imagined addition to Nature that many among us seem happy to argue about but make no serious attempt to rationalize.

The habit formed of continually arguing the 'reality' of supernatural claims has given the concept a false sense of validity. However, the natural fact is that supernatural belief exists only in the human mind and our ability to rationalize the concept has been overwhelmed by the cultural dominance of Christian belief.

Do we really need to waste our time and intellectual energy arguing? Surely it is more uplifting to spend our energy sharing that in which we do believe.

[ant]

.

Academically qualified theists are tied to the Christian status quo, while the less qualified demonstrate their inability to rationalize by retreating from any discussion muttering "You don’t understand"...

What exactly is an "academically qualified theist"?
Can you give me an example of one?
What evidence do you have to support your claim that "qualified theists" are "tied" to Christian status quo?

Regarding Christian status quo - can you give me an example from Christian doctrine on what that might be?

Have you viewed or attended any discussions or debates between theists and non-theists?
Which theists that you know of have said, "you don't understand" and have "retreated" immediately thereafter?

Non-theists generally consider themselves to be rational people, yet the term 'supernatural' implies an imagined addition to Nature that many among us seem happy to argue about but make no serious attempt to rationalize.

That statement is amusing and somewhat ironic.
Imagined additions to nature are a part of science as well. Imagination is an integral part of the engine of scientific thought.
Great men of science extend their minds well beyond the limits of observation and posit extraordinary things without extraordinary evidence. It would be considered highly irrational by a pure evidence-driven mind to consider the possibilities of the 10 dimensions of String Theory, or the 11 dimensions of M Theory, or forward time travel, or worm holes, and yet rational men subscribe to these and similar hypothesis with no means whatsoever to test them by empirically.

The mind's ability to extend itself far beyond the material world in search of metaphysical realities is the mind's confidence in its transcendent abilities.

A theist can trust, without evidence, that life is transcendent in a way that can not be empirically demonstrated by material means.

A non-theist can be confident his questions about the nature of reality will one day be fully understood by some grand unified theory. He can be confident WITHOUT evidence.

Who's to say we have the intellectual stamina to calculate a theory of everything?
We trust that nature is ordered in a fashion that our minds can comprehend, without evidence that the whole of nature is organized in a unified manner.

Why must nature be ordered in a fashion that one of its evolutionary products can decipher, meaning homo sapiens?
If we IMAGINE there to be other intelligent life in the universe, how might they rationalize the cosmos, Meaning, and Purpose? The same way we do? Might their intelligence think your intelligence "irrational" or are you assuming they'd be just like us?

Do we really need to waste our time and intellectual energy arguing? Surely it is more uplifting to spend our energy sharing that in which we do believe.

Actually, you don't need to waste your time and "intellectual energy" arguing about ANYTHING.
The exchanging of ideas between theists and non-theists has led to much growth from a historical perspective, and will lead to future growth if mind's remain open to the exchanging of ideas and imagination.
It is uplifting to keep our channels of communication open.
In my opinion, it takes more intellectual energy giving audience to people with entirely different ideas and beliefs.
Dismissing others because they are different is intellectual sloth.

The very claim of what "we do believe" is itself an alienating, exclusionary, and discriminating position. Many people "believe" MANY things.
What "WE" believe is idolatrous - a blind devotion to "my way is the only way"

[Robert Tulip]

demands for 'evidence' of supernatural events bore some people, and frustrate others:

Well said. It is about framing the terms of dialogue. Refuting false literal claims is often rather pointless, since belief in the supernatural is just wrong and ignorant. It is more constructive to develop a positive natural understanding. That need not mean simple rejection of religion, which is important for ethics, community and vision, but should involve a discussion of how religious needs can be met within a scientific framework.

1. Academically qualified theists are tied to the Christian status quo, while the less qualified demonstrate their inability to rationalize by retreating from any discussion muttering "You don’t understand"...

True. The religious have learned effective means of preaching which innoculate them against reason. Hidden evangelical assumptions often prevent dialogue. Commitments to tradition lead to important areas of research being neglected, such as the extent of fiction in the gospels, and the connections between different religions.

2. The second reason is perhaps a little more frustrating: Non-theists generally consider themselves to be rational people, yet the term 'supernatural' implies an imagined addition to Nature that many among us seem happy to argue about but make no serious attempt to rationalize.
The habit formed of continually arguing the 'reality' of supernatural claims has given the concept a false sense of validity. However, the natural fact is that supernatural belief exists only in the human mind and our ability to rationalize the concept has been overwhelmed by the cultural dominance of Christian belief. Do we really need to waste our time and intellectual energy arguing? Surely it is more uplifting to spend our energy sharing that in which we do believe.

Excellent points. My view is that all supernatural claims originated as allegory, as symbolic ways of explaining real experiences and observations. But over time the psychological and social processes of religion led to the allegories wrongly being interpreted as literal truth, and then institutions grew on the basis of this false literalism.

Churches have found that false myths can be effective ways to mobilise community. This gives these myths an unwarranted social power, but does not mean that a simple rejection of the myths as completely false will work. We should respect the possibility that the outer myth conceals a hidden valid meaning.

We should be able to respect the allegorical meaning within religious faith while critiquing its literal absurdity. As Paul said at 2 Corinthians 3:6, the letter kills but the spirit gives life. This means that literal adherence to the letter of supernatural fiction brings religion into degradation and disrepute, while the truth of the spirit is found by interpreting religious emotional fantasies against scientific evidence. We should analyse religious stories to find a meaning that is compatible with objective material observation and knowledge.

[ant]

We should be able to respect the allegorical meaning within religious faith while critiquing its literal absurdity. As Paul said at 2 Corinthians 3:6, the letter kills but the spirit gives life. This means that literal adherence to the letter of supernatural fiction brings religion into degradation and disrepute, while the truth of the spirit is found by interpreting religious emotional fantasies against scientific evidence. We should analyse religious stories to find a meaning that is compatible with objective material observation and knowledge.

You've taken Paul entirely out of context, Robert.., entirely out of context.

[Robert Tulip]

We should be able to respect the allegorical meaning within religious faith while critiquing its literal absurdity. As Paul said at 2 Corinthians 3:6, the letter kills but the spirit gives life. This means that literal adherence to the letter of supernatural fiction brings religion into degradation and disrepute, while the truth of the spirit is found by interpreting religious emotional fantasies against scientific evidence. We should analyse religious stories to find a meaning that is compatible with objective material observation and knowledge.

You've taken Paul entirely out of context, Robert.., entirely out of context.

No I haven't. The context is Paul's Epistle 2 Corinthians 3, where he calls the Ten Commandments, the framework of the previous Age of Law through Moses, "the ministry of death." Similarly today we can say the literal gospels are used as a ministry of death. Current supernaturalism makes a vain effort to breath life into a previous Age, ignoring the need for the spirit to draw its vitality from contemporary sources.

I agree with the argument of the opening post that there is little value in debating against obsolete literal belief in the supernatural. It is more constructive to focus on a natural spirituality.

[DWill]

Do we really need to waste our time and intellectual energy arguing? Surely it is more uplifting to spend our energy sharing that in which we do believe.

Actually, you don't need to waste your time and "intellectual energy" arguing about ANYTHING.
The exchanging of ideas between theists and non-theists has led to much growth from a historical perspective, and will lead to future growth if mind's remain open to the exchanging of ideas and imagination.
It is uplifting to keep our channels of communication open.
In my opinion, it takes more intellectual energy giving audience to people with entirely different ideas and beliefs.
Dismissing others because they are different is intellectual sloth.

The very claim of what "we do believe" is itself an alienating, exclusionary, and discriminating position. Many people "believe" MANY things.
What "WE" believe is idolatrous - a blind devotion to "my way is the only way"

Ant, I think you misread grizzlyman in general, but especially at the end there. He's quite clearly saying we should relate positively to theists, that we should seek common ground. But he's right that the topic of whether there is a God is a complete nonstarter, a fact that has been demonstrated time and time again on this forum.

[ant]

Um, wow, okay.
Lets see if he has a response that will add further clarification.

Thanks.

[grizzlyman]

Ant, your constant requests for qualification of rather easy to understand statements suggests to me that your requests are facetious tricks intended to score cheap debating points. I will answer a few but will not be drawn into schoolyard 'debate'. Your questions are followed by my response.
(Please excuse my inability to use the correct forum procedure. I am a slowly evolving pen and paper to computer dinosaur and still afraid to hit the wrong button.)

Ant: What exactly is an "academically qualified theist"?
Answer: Academically qualified theists usually possess a theology degree or equivalent schooling.

Ant: Can you give me an example of one?
Answer: Stick your head into any Christian church and talk to a priest.

Ant: What evidence do you have to support your claim that "qualified theists" are "tied" to Christian status quo?
Answer: Christian church officials are required to preach the approved doctrine.

Ant: Regarding Christian status quo - can you give me an example from Christian doctrine on what that might be?
Answer: Monotheism; a single supernatural entity reigning supreme over all other Gods is a founding principle of Christian doctrine.

Ant: Have you viewed or attended any discussions or debates between theists and non-theists?\
Answer: I have attended debates and can only say I find verbal fisticuffs boring in the same way that I find the non-theists constant demands for 'evidence' boring.

Ant: Which theists that you know of have said, "you don't understand" and have "retreated" immediately thereafter?
Answer: Speak to any non-theist and they will explain the 'theists retreat' from lunchroom debate.

I refer you to my first post in this communication: 'Do we really need to waste our time and intellectual energy arguing? Surely it is more uplifting to spend our energy sharing that in which we do believe'.

[geo]

Two people having a dialogue are usually trying to come to terms on the basic facts. Even if they disagree beyond those basic facts, they can usually establish a basis for their disagreement. But this doesn't work when it comes to the question of God. There is no logical basis for God and so such belief is always beyond rational debate.

Grizzly is right. No amount of debating is going to change the believer's assumption, so why not focus on those areas where two people can come to terms.

An intellectually honest position for the atheist is to say he cannot believe in something for which there is no evidence, knowing especially that humans evolved certain cognitive deficiencies that allow them to fool themselves all the time. Likewise, the only intellectually honest position for a believer is to say that he knows there's no evidence for God, but chooses to believe anyway. Both of these positions put the onus on personal conviction, although the atheist position is the only logically tenable position and most believers won't acknowledge that.

[ant]

Intellectual atheists deceive themselves in a belief that our formal system of human logic is endowed with an omniscient infallibility that grants license to proclaim the nature of reality. However, the laws of nature and whatever governs them are NOT laws of logic, nor are they analogous to the laws of logic.

It is a rather anthropocentric and haughty claim to assert our system of logic contains enough vigor to state “god does not exist.” The atheist is far too presumptuous to leap from “I have no belief” to “I have no belief AND there is no god.” It is understandable; better to have logic than nothing. The atheist, without god, has nothing other than material determinism and subjective relativity.

If it is God, logic, or nothing, the atheist arrives at nothing when logic arrives at its borders, for he has forced himself into nothingness because of his refusal to extend himself beyond his self imprisonment.

Leonard Susskind said something very interesting and honest about the “landscape” of nature:

If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent – maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation – I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID.

The atheist has his faith.
The theist has his.

Kurt Godel devised a mathematical proof for the existence of God.
This is not to say that god exists based on Godel’s mathematical logic-based prowess. However, it does exemplify that our system of logic, in its current state, is malleable enough to guide humanity in directions not yet empirically demonstrable.