(May 28, 2020 at 8:32 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I think that the fundamental disconnect here is that Bel thinks he's defending the "beauty" of supernatural narratives. He's failed to accurately address what believers in the supernatural (purportedly not him) are refering to when they discuss the supernatural..and like any other person steeped in a naturalist framework, has trouble expressing the idea of the supernatural as a separate category from the natural.
Arguably, this strips supernatural narratives of the very beauty he seeks to defend - beauty found in their comments on the human condition, not on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Bel has asserted that the supernatural is a logical impossibility contained to things that nothing does which cannot be observed. His pleas for some proof that this concept is false are likely genuine. He does not possess the knowledge, semantics, or rhetorical skill to express as much on his own. As his entire existence here at af has been one long running screed against dumb atheists, he's unlikely to accept any such demonstration no matter who or how many times he's given exactly what he's asked for....because he believes that atheists just don't "get it". He's here to educate us, not the other way round, lol.
I don't think I've ever said that religion/religious thinking has not produced positive thoughts/motivations/works for humanity. If the supernaturalists want to acknowledge that their belief exists as concept only I'd have less of an issue with them.
For reasons that he refuses to acknowledge Bell needs the supernatural to exist as more than a narrative, more than a concept.
And he rarely, if ever, flips the supernatural narrative coin over and addresses the negatives. The avoidance is telling.
I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem.
