>>18510619
Zoroastrianism is the only correct religion, but none of you are ready for that conversation yet.

>>18510619
>proven to be in the right
>can't be proven
What you can prove directly follows from what methods and evidence criteria you find valid. And you're right that methods established for proving the supernatural are few to none. But nothing except fear of failure prevents us from creating some.
>Every miracle, resurrection, afterlife, and so forth can be disproven
I've never seen this happen. I've only seen people propose naturalistic explanations and then sticking to them because they prefer naturalistic explanations. Proving things was never necessary in their mind.
>So is atheism and denial of supernatural the truth then?
No, it's just something you're stuck with until you establish methods to verify supernatural claims.

>>18510649
What realistic method could we even establish to verify the supernatural? How could we verify the existence of ghosts or fairies, or even gods?
>I've never seen this happen. I've only seen people propose naturalistic explanations and then sticking to them because they prefer naturalistic explanations.
But that's exactly the problem. A supernatural explanation is still only a proposition as well, and when compared to any naturalistic explanation, however impossible, the supernatural immediately falls apart. A naturalist explanation is based on scientifically observable reality - a supernatural proposition is not. That's exactly why it's supernatural.

>>18510669
>What realistic method could we even establish to verify the supernatural?
The only satisfactory one I've seen was good old experimental verification - trying the mystical experiences out for oneself. Is it scaleable? Definitely not. Unless I turn pro, I will only have a few experiences. But that's good enough for me. It doesn't seem to be good enough for most atheists I talk to, but when it comes to establishing other methods, they turn silent.
>How could we verify the existence of ghosts or fairies, or even gods?
Depends on how you define ghosts, fairies and gods. If fairies are little winged people with whatever powers there might be, then capturing one and performing a DNA test proving their species is discretely separate from any other would be good enough. As it would be for bigfoot. As it would be for leprechauns. For ghosts it really depends what you propose those are made of. And for gods it's basically impossible to say because the term is used so broadly it only has a Wittgensteinian family resemblance, not an actual set of criteria in the definition.
>when compared to any naturalistic explanation, however impossible, the supernatural immediately falls apart
If one apriori prefers naturalism, yes. But that is circularly reasoned. "The naturalistic explanation is better because naturalistic explanations are better."
>A naturalist explanation is based on scientifically observable reality - a supernatural proposition is not.
Again, this is a question of methods. You're pointing to a gap that science currently has and instead of filling it, you argue from it. And I'm not saying you're stupid or anything, you're culturally predisposed to do this, mainstream culture basically programs you to do this and to think this way.

>>18510619
Yes, it's basically 9999:1 for naturalism, physicalism, whatever you want to call it. And this 1 for supernatural is basically just anecdotal evidence.
It's not even exaggeration.

>>18510717
>rules: prefer naturalism every time
>results: naturalism wins every time
It's not even exaggeration.

>>18510738
No. It's not about preference, but what is actually observable and experimentally proven.

>>18510738
I'd prefer supernaturalism if you could prove you can summon batwinged goat-women with big tits by making weird gestures with your hands and chanting abracadabra while dancing around a pentagram desu.

>>18510740
>experimentally proven
I completely agree with you. There are no solid experiments that prove the supernatural. Because we only designed experimental methods for natural phenomena. Expecting natural methods to prove the supernatural is a contradiction and leads precisely to naturalism 'winning' not by quality, but by default.

>>18510748
how big?

>>18510619
There is proving, and then there is knowing. And thankfully we have no obligation to prove jackshit to you.

>>18510692
Have you tried these mystical experiences, and what have you found?

>>18510756
Ask /a/, they spend so much time discussing how big is too big that they ought to be the experts on the subject by now.
>>18510753
The supernatural (simpliciter) isn't in principle untestable. If the supernatural claim is something like "whoever tosses a coin in this well will have all the bones in his body disappear three days later", you can easily test it.
It's just that none of the supernatural claims that can be tested like that ever turn out to be correct.

>>18510760
I have. If you're curious about supernatural experiences, I will refer you to the Christian saints who've had many more than me, much more detailed than I did and were presumably more discerning in what is fit to be shared with the general population.

>>18510772
Yes, you can make claims that are technically supernaturalist that are testable, just like you can make claims that are technically naturalist and are untestable, but in practice our methods are designed to cover pretty much most of daily naturalist grounds and almost none of supernatural grounds. Forget designing experiments, people struggle to even define criteria that evidence for supernatural entities should meet. That's why we can agree on what would prove bigfoot in 2 minutes but we didn't articulate any good evidence criteria for God in 2000 years. Fingers crossed though, I've read some contemporary philosophers that are optimistic about science evolving to the point where even 'mystical' claims would have methods of verification.

>>18510787
>our methods are designed to cover pretty much most of daily naturalist grounds and almost none of supernatural grounds
No, it's just that you do not consider all the supernatural claims that have been disproven worth contemplating so you don't even include them in your conceptual understanding of "the supernatural".
That's why you think of the supernaturalist grounds as mostly unfalsifiable, you implicitly think of all the supernaturalist grounds that have already been falsified as naturalist grounds.

>>18510787
Why Christian and not other religions?

>>18510799
Yes, just like I don't really think of all those naturalist claims that were disproven. That some claims turned out ot be wrong makes no difference to my position. An infinity of bearded sages could have argued that their third eye can spawn a chilled pepsi bottle into the palm of your hand and then fail to do so, it would make no difference to me.

>>18510803
I can't vouch for other religions.

>>18510809
>Yes, just like I don't really think of all those naturalist claims that were disproven.
But it's not just about specific claims, it's about what grounds naturalism and supernaturalism have originally made a claim to and later ceded.
Take something like epilepsy. Both naturalism and supernaturalism laid a claim to an explanation. Humour theory on naturalism's side was disproven, but the territory is still controlled by a naturalist claim today. This constant retreat on supernaturalism's side is what you close your eyes to, essentially pretending that supernaturalism never put forward those claims to begin with and that the territory always fell under naturalism.

>>18510824
>Humour theory on naturalism's side was disproven, but the territory is still controlled by a naturalist claim today.
And I argue that it's because the tools of territory conquest are designed for naturalism. Like I said in >>18510753, I completely agree that naturalism has enjoyed immense success with experimental evidence. I just don't think it's valid to pretend that these experimental methods are equally fit for naturalism and supernaturalism both, and that naturalism just happens to perform better with it. These methods are designed with naturalism in mind first and foremost. It's a victory by default, the territory is not lost in a battle, but through supernaturalism being mostly absent altogether.

In >>18510692 I point out that some supernatural claims are kinda sorta possible to reflect in today's scientific paradigm if you try hard enough, but they're very slim pickings. You can prove a leprechaun if you skip the magic bits and you can perhaps set evidence criteria for ghosts if you really reduce away most of the concept and lore. Proving gods or God is out of reach completely. You cannot tell me you consider this to be an appropriate fair tool to investigate the supernatural.

>>18510861
>And I argue that it's because the tools of territory conquest are designed for naturalism.
Are you unironically arguing that us thinking epilepsy is explained by naturalism is misplaced bias and that in reality it still might turn out to be demons and shit?
If that is not what you're saying, you're still just ignoring the territory ceded by supernaturalism.
By the way, another reason why I favour naturalism is that I do not think it's prima facie likely that a world with both natural and supernatural phenomena would contain those and only those supernatural things that cannot be tested through scientific methods. To me, the simplest explanation of such a state of affairs is that supernaturalists made up a bunch of bullshit and then retreated to those small parts of their vast bullshit territories that turned out to be in principle empirically unfalsifiable and philosophically merely disputed.

>>18510886
>Are you unironically arguing that us thinking epilepsy is explained by naturalism is misplaced bias and that in reality it still might turn out to be demons and shit?
Yes. I don't have a reason to doubt the role of material causation in our reality. I just don't see a good enough reason to say the universe stops at our methodological blindspots.
>I do not think it's prima facie likely that a world with both natural and supernatural phenomena would contain those and only those supernatural things that cannot be tested through scientific methods
In the very post you're replying to I'm explaining that it's not 'those and only those'. But leaving that aside, let me point out that your perspective is exactly backwards - you're asking me why there would be a part of the universe precisely the size of your blind spot. It's not particularly sized up to your blind spots, it's just there and thousands of people agree that it's there, relating it to the limits of your current methods is your juxtaposition. And it's a valid juxtaposition, you are correct to recognize that there is a bunch of propositions beyond what you can currently analyze. But why should that produce denial instead of an effort to develop your methods further?
>made up a bunch of bullshit
And how do you explain the convergence of this bullshit across centuries, across cultures, across continents etc.?

>>18510886
>Are you unironically arguing that us thinking epilepsy is explained by naturalism is misplaced bias and that in reality it still might turn out to be demons and shit?
why not. reality is entirely mental anyways.

>>18510692
>The only satisfactory one I've seen was good old experimental verification - trying the mystical experiences out for oneself. Is it scaleable? Definitely not. Unless I turn pro, I will only have a few experiences. But that's good enough for me. It doesn't seem to be good enough for most atheists I talk to, but when it comes to establishing other methods, they turn silent.
It is not the job of us to disprove the supernatural, it's the job of those making the claim to prove it. You're essentially putting atheists into a position to come up with ways for your claims to be proven correct.
>If one apriori prefers naturalism, yes. But that is circularly reasoned. "The naturalistic explanation is better because naturalistic explanations are better."
The naturalistic explanation is better, because we have verifiable proof of natural events that can explain an event happening. We have a way to both repeat and test these theories as well. We do not have such a thing for supernatural events, because we can't prove if a Hindu mystic actually floated in the air or not, even if there were hundreds of eyewitnesses. You yourself commit circular reasoning here: "Many people have had supernatural experiences -> Supernatural must exist".
>You're pointing to a gap that science currently has and instead of filling it, you argue from it.
But we do have many scientific explanations for supposed supernatural events. We know that hallucinations happen. We know that coincidences happen. We know that people outright lie. We do not know if supernatural is real, because it's impossible to repeat these. A gap in science is not proof of supernatural, nor does it make a naturalist case weaker. You yourself are ready to fill these gaps with supernatural, because your own belief system supports this. If you want to prove supernatural exists, you need to find a way to prove it. The only method you came up with was personal anecdotes.

>>18510809
>I can't vouch for other religions.
Okay, should I believe in Hinduism then, because Hindus claim a lot of miracles?

>>18510917
>you're asking me why there would be a part of the universe precisely the size of your blind spot
No, that is not what I'm asking you. What you call a "bind spot" is not a well defined territory at all, in fact it's only defined by the fact that it contains the supernatural rot that is in principle scientifically unfalsifiable.
And of course the reason why supernatural claims converge on that specific territory is because all the other supernatural crap gets falsified.
>And how do you explain the convergence of this bullshit across centuries, across cultures, across continents etc.?
You mean like god shit and such? Tendency to anthropomorphize combined with cultural exchange.

>>18510947
>It is not the job of us to disprove the supernatural, it's the job of those making the claim to prove it.
Absolutely. And before that happens, we need to agree on criteria that such a proof would need to meet. And this is necessarily both parties' job.
>You're essentially putting atheists into a position to come up with ways for your claims to be proven correct.
Atheists are very comfortable positioning themselves as evaluators of evidence. And yet when I point out they have zero criteria to evaluate with, I have suddenly forced something on them?
>naturalistic explanation is better, because we have verifiable proof
Addressed in >>18510753. You do have verifiable proof, I completely agree. Not because naturalism is better.
>"Many people have had supernatural experiences -> Supernatural must exist".
I didn't say this.
> we do have many scientific explanations for supposed supernatural events
And as long as you apriori prefer naturalistic ones over supernatural ones, that's all you will have - a blind spot and willingness to work around it. If that's good enough for you, don't mind me. I'd rather know the truth.

>>18510950
Believe whatever you like, I can only vouch for Christianity.

>>18510954
>What you call a "bind spot" is not a well defined territory at all
And yet you pointed it out perfectly just a secodn ago...
>the reason why supernatural claims converge on that specific territory is because all the other supernatural crap gets falsified
Which cannot be the explanation as it converged long before any trend of falsification began appearing.
>>across centuries, across cultures, across continents etc.?
>cultural exchange
That would be more exchange than in any other aspect ever recorded. See, this is a great example of a completely exaggerated naturalistic explanation still being preferred over a supernatural one, just by virtue of it being naturalistic.

>>18510981
>And yet you pointed it out perfectly just a secodn ago...
If a category of claims is straight up altogether bullshit, it will inevitably eventually be reduced only to claims that are in principle unfalsifiable. That's a property of all categories of bullshit claims.
>Which cannot be the explanation as it converged long before any trend of falsification began appearing.
No, this is just you ignoring all the supernatural claims that were falsified again.
>That would be more exchange than in any other aspect ever recorded. See, this is a great example of a completely exaggerated naturalistic explanation still being preferred over a supernatural one, just by virtue of it being naturalistic.
Why did you leave out the rest of my reply to that point? That's right, you don't want to assail my arguments at their strongest.
I specifically said a tendency to anthropomorphize and cultural exchange. The tendency alone gives you the broad strokes while certain more specific similarities can be explained by cultural exchange. Meanwhile you're treating my argument as if I'm claiming that belief in god (simpliciter) is only a product of cultural exchange, because you think such a claim would be easier to argue against. You're a sophist and I have no interest in continuing this conversation with you. Enjoy having the last word.

>>18511028
>>Which cannot be the explanation as it converged long before any trend of falsification began appearing.
>No, this is just you ignoring all the supernatural claims that were falsified again.
We might be talking about slightly different things at this point. Regardless of whether they were falsified at any later point (or ever), supernatural claims are very convergent across cultures, to the point where a random African tribe's Deus Otiosus could be entirely compatible with strict first temple Hebrew Deuteronomical literature, and they would both contain narratives parallel to Siberian inuit mythology. Is it possible that this was achieved through cultural exchange? Yes. Would it require WAY more cultural exchange than we've ever suspected (or observed) taking place, WAY more complex? Yes. Is naturalist mental acrobacy apriori more acceptable to you than straightforward supernaturalist "they experienced similar deities n shiet"? Yes.... And that's my point. Naturalism wins because you prefer it, not because it accounts for anything better.
>Why did you leave out the rest of my reply to that point?
Because " Tendency to anthropomorphize" is an attempt to thematically address the supernatural, a very good chunk of which is not thematically anthropomorphic at its roots, so it's just a dead miss. You might cover a chunk of deities with this idea, but we have good evidence that many of currently humanesque deities (such as Greek ones) are rooted either in animism (becoming anthropomorphic only later) or in lack of representation altogether (rather drawing on neoplatonic One-ness). Neither sizeable group can be explained by reference to anthropomorphic features.
>You're a sophist
I'm sorry you feel that way, I just found it wasn't that useful to point out that you're dead wrong in part of your argument and I instead focused on the other part which is feasible and illustrates a further point. If it came across as selective, I suppose that is my fault.

>>18510981
Atheists and skeptics do have tons of criteria to evaluate claims of supernatural.

>>18511134
I genuinely wish that were true. If it is, they must be really good at keeping it from the general public than because I've hardly ever come by any (either in discourse or in published texts) and some posters itt went so far to give up and proclaim that most of the standing claims are overall unfalsifiable.

What criteria do you reckon would a well equipped, scientifically minded atheist use to evaluate evidence of God?

>>18510619
Religion still matters when it comes to social organisation, which is why jews do their best to destroy it.

>>18511143
Have you seriously never heard of the likes of James Randi, etc? They put out tons of very clearly controlled tests of claimed supernatural skills. Nobody ever claimed the prize he set up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joADD7jWqa4
If we'd want to know that, say, miracles happen, we'd need to obviously be able to test and repeat it in a controlled environment. For example, if some mystic claimed to be able to heal people, the test would need to be done on random test subjects while researchers observed it. If someone claims to have been visited by an angel or a demon or a fairy, we'd need to find some kind of proof beyond oral or written testimony of the creature, like multiple camera footage, and see if there's any possibility of the footage being tampered with or faked.

>>18510619
Atheism rests upon an assumption that everything is knowable. Going by that presumption an atheist should be able to experience every corner of the universe.

File: file(1).jpg (135 KB, 716x928)

135 KB JPG

>>18510619
Cool

>>18510619
>Every afterlife can be disproven.
No. I have observed the afterlife, and I nothat it exists. I have seen people die, yet I am still alive. My life exists after theirs. The afterlife has been proven. My religion is sound and valid.

>>18510669
>How could we verify the existence of ghosts or fairies, or even gods?
Define them properly. Stop defining them as things that dont exist.

>>18510669
>What realistic method could we even establish to verify the supernatural?
Define conciousness as supernatural, and the physical world as natural.

>>18510669
>That's exactly why it's supernatural
No. Its super-natural, because its conciousness, and conciousness is not a physical thing, but an awarness.

Conciousness is observable. You are experiencing it right now. The supernatural has been proven to you, because you are experiencing it first hand. You just need to fix your nomenclature.

File: Fairy man.jpg (17 KB, 365x547)

17 KB JPG

>>18511232
>angel or a demon or a fairy
These are just messages. You recieve messages all the time.

>>18511232
>proof beyond oral or written testimony
Lol. But thats what messages are. How about DNA, that is a code that transmits a message. Is that enough proof that messages exist?

File: Habbenings.jpg (7 KB, 252x200)

7 KB JPG

>>18510619
>I have a feeling no religion can be proven to be in the right.
For me, this feeling comes straight from the fact that we are at mercy to the whims of the world. I think our brains got so complicated we started to suffer from ourselves. The acute awareness of our damnation here on planet Earth. So we invented works of fiction in order to cope and say it is some higher order of reality.

File: Phanny.png (476 KB, 700x526)

476 KB PNG

>>18510619
>So is atheism and denial of supernatural the truth then? No ghosts, angels, elves, demons, fairies, or gods. No flight of Muhammad, no resurrection of Jesus, no enlightenment by Buddha, no god has ever appeared to anyone. No afterlife. Once we die, that's that?
We still haven't outgrown our need for shamans to tell us what is all about. We fear not knowing, so we make room for the schizoposters to tell us what it might be about even though it really is just story time if we are honest with ourselves.

File: HEILSATAN.jpg (11 KB, 211x239)

11 KB JPG

>>18511391
>Atheism rests upon an assumption that everything is knowable. Going by that presumption an atheist should be able to experience every corner of the universe.
No it doesn't. It is accepting the unknowable instead of placating our anxiety about our ignorance with story time bullshit. It is arrogance to try to know more than we really can. Just say you don't know and all you have is trust me bro to go off of.

>>18511232
I might have, but I likely haven't delved too deep because he doesn't address my question:
>>What criteria do you reckon would a well equipped, scientifically minded atheist use to evaluate evidence of God?
Which is probably the supernatural claim per excellence.

>angel or a demon
>multiple camera footage
What do angels and demons look like? What kind of light spectrum do they reflect or give off? See, this is exactly the case of naturalistic design being transposed to supernatural ideas with no adjustment, and then one would wonder why it doesn't work. Maybe we should weigh the angels too. And by some freak accident maybe they will have weight... what do we conclude about that? How many grams need to show up on the scale for you to abandon naturalism? None. It's a pointless criterion entirely based in naturalism to begin with.

>>18511539
>>18511536
What fucking messages?

>>18511810
I don't think you're stupid, anon, but you are a prisoner of your mind. I can't disprove the existence of God, angels, and demons, but nobody can disprove the fairy living in my closet. I have multiple witnesses by the way, and since fairies are spiritual and immaterial, they can't be measured, recorded, or described.

>>18511837
I didn't ask anyone to disprove God, I asked people who insist on receiving evidence about the criteria they will use to evaluate the evidence. My prison is open.