Lets take a little break from politics and have us a real atheist conversation.

Personally, I’m open to the idea of the existence of supernatural phenomena, and I believe mainstream religions are actually complicated incomplete stories full of misinterpretations, misunderstandings, and half-truths.

Basically, I think that these stories are not as simple and straightforward as they seem to be to religious people. I feel like there is a lot more to them. Concluding that all these stories are just made up or came out of nowhere is kind of hard for me.

  • doomcanoe@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    29 days ago

    Let me preface this by saying I tend to go with the Null hypothesis until proven otherwise, and as such don’t believe in the unproven supernatural.

    Regardless, there are two ways to interpret James Randi never getting proof.

    1. There are no provable supernatural claims.
    2. Those who could prove a supernatural claim have no use for a $1,000,000 prize.
    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      28 days ago

      Re number. 2, they must also either be ignorant of the existence of charities or can’t think of a single one that could use that $1,000,000 they would have no use for. So I don’t accept that.

      • doomcanoe@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        28 days ago

        Perhaps. Though it’s entirely conceivable that the cost of revealing said supernatural proof would be detrimental to their life in such a way that no use of a $1,000,000 would justify it. Or, ala Mr. Manhattan, they have lost their empathy and/or worldly concern. Or they could just be massive dicks who could make $1,000,000 easier if their secret is kept, like Hayden Christensen in Jumper.

        So I stand by my point that only looking at James Randi’s $1,000,000 prize as proof that “there is no supernatural claims that can be proven” is an example of sampling bias. Even if you can not conceive of a person who would have no reason to, nor a reason not to, seek out the specific prize money.

        Assuming the correctness of a hypothesis without sufficiently disproving potentially valid alternatives is how we wound up with the acceptance of the supernatural. It’s just bad epistemology.

        Regardless, I believe that James Randi’s offer, combined with the lack of any other provable and sufficiently documented supernatural occurrences means it’s more than reasonable to not hold any belief in the supernatural. I certainly don’t myself.

        ETA: 3. I suppose a third possibility is they were unable/unwilling to travel or were entirely unaware of said prize. Something like a “hermetic monk” for exame.

        • shalafi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          28 days ago

          If I had legit supernatural powers, $1,000,000 would be chump change to reveal those powers. No way.

          • doomcanoe@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            28 days ago

            Definition taken from Merriam Webster

            hermetic adjective

            1 a: Of or relating to the mystical and alchemical writings or teachings arising in the first three centuries a.d. and attributed to Hermes Trismegistus

            b: Relating to or characterized by subjects that are mysterious and difficult to understand: Relating to or characterized by occultism or abstruseness

            a hermetic discussion

            2 b: impervious to external influence

            trapped inside the hermetic military machine

            c: recluse, solitary

            leads a hermetic life

            So in this context, I guess I’m using both meanings. As in they are isolated monks with knowledge of the occult and esoteric.