Gormenghast Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 10 hours ago, Padders said: Be careful what you post Mr. G. I didn't know that he took part in such human activity Mr P. Well, well, we live and live... BTW, thats a pretty poor attempt at copying William Holman Hunt's** famous painting 'I am the Light of the World' No lantern, or crown of thorns, and where's the forest background? Its also a bit too bright, no chiaroscuro in evidence. It's one of my absolute favourite paintings, superb, but I view it as a piece of art, nothing more. ** 2 April 1827 - 7 September 1910. Go on Mr P, check that the dates are correct. 😄 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annie Bynnol Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 39 minutes ago, redruby said: ... As I said before, I see supernatural beliefs as fundamentally the same as religious beliefs and as such I don’t think we should be rude and dismissive to the former any more than the latter. I also see supernatural beliefs as fundamentally the same as religious beliefs, because they originate from the same fundamental needs of belonging, order, feeling safe, a promise of a better future etc. 'Understanding' enabled a better chance of survival but did not meet those fundamental needs. Over the millennia 'understanding' became dominated by more and more sophisticated 'beliefs systems' which despite periods of enlightenment, when understanding thrived, became more oppressive because they feared that 'understanding' would undermine their very existence-which in most cases it did. Being "rude" is wrong, being "dismissive" is your interpretation of reaction people have to your version of the 'supernatural'. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaz 786 Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 9 minutes ago, Gormenghast said: I didn't know that he took part in such human activity Mr P. Well, well, we live and live... BTW, thats a pretty poor attempt at copying William Holman Hunt's** famous painting 'I am the Light of the World' No lantern, or crown of thorns, and where's the forest background? Its also a bit too bright, no chiaroscuro in evidence. It's one of my absolute favourite paintings, superb, but I view it as a piece of art, nothing more. ** 2 April 1827 - 7 September 1910. Go on Mr P, check that the dates are correct. 😄 We will all be turned into pillars of salt if we aren't careful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redruby Posted October 9 Author Share Posted October 9 11 minutes ago, Annie Bynnol said: I also see supernatural beliefs as fundamentally the same as religious beliefs, because they originate from the same fundamental needs of belonging, order, feeling safe, a promise of a better future etc. 'Understanding' enabled a better chance of survival but did not meet those fundamental needs. Over the millennia 'understanding' became dominated by more and more sophisticated 'beliefs systems' which despite periods of enlightenment, when understanding thrived, became more oppressive because they feared that 'understanding' would undermine their very existence-which in most cases it did. Being "rude" is wrong, being "dismissive" is your interpretation of reaction people have to your version of the 'supernatural'. I think we have largely the same views with regards to religion and the supernatural. But I’m rather confused by your last statement. I was simply saying that if someone was to, say, come on this Forum and say to person of ‘x’ religion that their belief is a load of mumbo jumbo and the followers of this religion are basically deluded or not very bright it would considered deeply offensive and said comment may be removed. Say the same about someone who, say, believes in ghosts and it’s all fair game to make such remarks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redruby Posted October 9 Author Share Posted October 9 1 hour ago, Bellatrix said: Quite, as I went on to discuss in the subsequent paragraph. But my point is that others do believe that a supernatural explanation is sufficient to account for unexplained phenomena, and/or suggest that because an explanation is yet to be found science will conclusively fail to do so. Those who really don't want to believe in the supernatural will be open to listening to and exploring alternative ideas and explanations and will be likely to accept, as with most things, the simplest explanation; when we hear hoofbeats we don't look for zebras. Superstition and fear thrive in the absence of information and knowledge, and you'll only be perceived as a crank if you actively and persistently reject that information and knowledge. If you see a ghost in the shadows it can be massively convincing. If you're not aware that perception is primed to make out faces and familiar shapes in random patterns of light and shadow because at some point in the past a false positive of a tiger in the undergrowth would make you runaway and so prevent you from being eaten, then you're going to be more inclined to believe that that random pattern in the curtains is a ghostly figure and not perception actively working to be fooled by an illusion. I'm perfectly happy with dismissing religious belief. Even accounting for belief and faith trumping rationality, if your belief dictates that others - women and gay people, for example - can be treated poorly, and behaviour can be dictated and controlled, then dismissal and ridicule for belief in a supernatural entity like God or gods is entirely reasonable. Again, I think we hold largely the same views on this subject but I still think it’s generally far more acceptable to dismiss believers of the supernatural than those of a religious faith. To prove this, why not have a go on starting a thread on religious belief being nonsense and see what happens! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annie Bynnol Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 13 minutes ago, redruby said: I think we have largely the same views with regards to religion and the supernatural. But I’m rather confused by your last statement. I was simply saying that if someone was to, say, come on this Forum and say to person of ‘x’ religion that their belief is a load of mumbo jumbo and the followers of this religion are basically deluded or not very bright it would considered deeply offensive and said comment may be removed. Say the same about someone who, say, believes in ghosts and it’s all fair game to make such remarks. We have no shared views on religion and the supernatural. I do not do "beliefs" or "belief systems" and if I was to bore someone for an hour on religion and the supernatural and they remarked that that my views on "...belief is a load of mumbo jumbo..." I would not stand in their way. I would not say "...followers are basically deluded or not very bright..." as I have seen no evidence for it and from personal experience not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redruby Posted October 9 Author Share Posted October 9 3 minutes ago, Annie Bynnol said: We have no shared views on religion and the supernatural. I do not do "beliefs" or "belief systems" and if I was to bore someone for an hour on religion and the supernatural and they remarked that that my views on "...belief is a load of mumbo jumbo..." I would not stand in their way. I would not say "...followers are basically deluded or not very bright..." as I have seen no evidence for it and from personal experience not true. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. 1. I am not religious. I believe you said the same about yourself? 2. I am sceptical about all things paranormal. I believe you are too? 3. I know you haven’t *literally* said ‘all followers of the paranormal are deluded or not very bright’. But you have been very strident to say the least in your replies to those that are not completely in line with your own beliefs. As your latest reply to me illustrates. 4. As in my reply to Bellatrix I wonder if you also would start up a thread about all religion being nonsense to see if the reactions to this were somewhat different to one about the supernatural? I would love to be stood corrected on this but sadly I suspect such a thread would not be well received. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gormenghast Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 1 hour ago, gaz 786 said: We will all be turned into pillars of salt if we aren't careful. Well if that is our Lot, (did you see what I did there?) so be it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bellatrix Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 1 hour ago, redruby said: Again, I think we hold largely the same views on this subject but I still think it’s generally far more acceptable to dismiss believers of the supernatural than those of a religious faith. To prove this, why not have a go on starting a thread on religious belief being nonsense and see what happens! I think it's equally acceptable to dismiss both as both are the belief, in the absence of evidence, in a supernatural entity or entities. I'm more inclined to be sympathetic to believers in ghosts, mediums, lore and so on because, unlike a belief in God or gods, those beliefs are essentially harmless. There have been plenty of threads in the past about religious belief and I've happily contributed to many of them from this position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Padders Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 13 minutes ago, Gormenghast said: Well if that is our Lot, (did you see what I did there?) so be it... Of course I did, Mr. Lot and his wife were told by two angels to flee the city of Sodom, Mrs Lot disobeyed the angels order not to look back, and were turned into pillars of salt. Leave the jokes to me Mr. G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now