Believers VS Non-belivers

[edwardcullensotherwoman]

Why is it that if someone believes in something, they will talk about it as exactly that - something they believe in - and not portray it as absolute fact; yet if someone doesn't believe in something, they will say this as an absolute fact and ridicule those who believe?

It's almost as if those who don't believe (in whatever the subject: angels, God, reincarnation) consider themselves superior to those who do, and view those who do as stupid for doing so.

Surely everyone's beliefs are their own belief and opinion - nothing "woo" can be either proven or disproven, so therefore nobody is right or wrong.

It just seems that every thread that starts "Do you believe" on this board ends up in a bun fight with believes defending themselves against non-believers who tell them they're being ridiculous. The clue is in the title of the board - if you don't believe in anything that's likely to be discussed under that heading, just avoid the board!

"Supernatural belief can be one which does not conform to any religious belief system."

There is no such definition. You are making this up because you can't find any significant distinction between "supernatural belief" and "religious belief".

"Supernatural belief is not exactly the same as religious belief though.."

What seems to be the difference?

I'm curious, too. But not very.

Oh btw, nice try with the "Supernatural is not the same thing as Religious because.... Supernatural is what is not religious" attempt

Garlic I have similar kind of thoughts regarding shapes and what I think of as waveforms in events, spheres and circles too, regarding the right action for the right circumstance / balanced approach, circular arguments crossing over into fruit, leaf and tree imagery in the Bible and mapping brain pathways in brain physiology.

Core ESP is supernatural, but not necessarily religious.

^ Sorry Cote

capsium - I didn't ask if the word "supernatural" means "religious".

I asked what you think the difference is between a supernatural belief and a religious belief.

Do you have an answer?

Core The difference is the difference in meaning between the two words, supernatural and religious.

Yep, Capsium, I'm with you on the tree/cauliflower thing, as are millions of scientists & philosophers all over the world. And gardeners

Saying that some supernatural thing isn't religious doesn't mean religion isn't supernatural. Cote pre-empted you on that!

Oh yes, brain physiology.

You said "I believe spiritual belief(s) can manifest physically. ... Set patterns of thought and ways of thinking can alter brain physiology which can in turn alter people's perceptions and can be passed onto new generations."

Have you explained this about spiritual belief changing the brain's physiology?

^ I mean Cote again!

I quoted some research upthread, Cote. Did you read it?

Saying that some supernatural thing isn't religious doesn't mean religion isn't supernatural. Cote pre-empted you on that!

Oh I understand this! and agree...

capsicum - "The difference is the difference in meaning between the two words, supernatural and religious"

Are you playing dumb?

Su·per·nat·u·ral - (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Please explain now how that is different than religious belief.

No. I genuinely did not understand what you were getting at Cote.

Well now you do. What is your answer?

Religious belief involves believing in the supernatural however supernatural belief does not have to be religious.

Add message | Report | Message poster CoteDAzur Wed 11-Jun-14 16:44:15
"You said here, "You are coming across as a bit odd." (When referring to a quotation of mine). I find this comment to be a bit personal"

Well, you were.

What do you want me to do about it?

You have just dedicated pages of this thread to get all offended and argue against something nobody said. It's an odd thing to do. That's what I said.

Cote, I have explained why what I thought you said was/could be construed as offensive and prejudiced. It is not up to you declare me odd for expressing this. Are you the authority on what is odd?

I wish you would stop misrepresenting stuff I say. I'm beginning to think you are doing it on purpose.

I didn't say you are odd for taking offence. I said you are coming across as slightly odd because you have created an offence that nobody said ("Everyone who has ever had a religious revelation is psychotic") and spent loads of time, yours as well as everyone else's, complaining about it.

capsium - "Religious belief involves believing in the supernatural however supernatural belief does not have to be religious."

Wonderful. We are getting somewhere.

So, you understand that religious belief is a subset of the large family of supernatural beliefs.

Religious belief is a supernatural belief, no different than belief in fairies, ghosts, or distance healing.

So when you say "religious belief is not the same thing as a supernatural belief", that is like saying "a dog is not the same thing as an animal".

I admire your patience, Cote, frayed as it is

To look at the context where I said that, you need to look across at least two posts, if not more. Here,

^Add message | Report | Message poster Hakluyt Wed 11-Jun-14 08:53:32
" A lot people of Christian Faith would say their Faith is experiential, to suggest they are all experiencing psychosis is offensive."^

Why is it offensive? If something unusual happens to someone isn't it a good idea to look at all the possibilities? And hearing voices, seeing things which aren't there, imagining that people are communicating when they aren't are all symptoms of some sorts of mental illness that a huge number of people experience in their lives. It's not offensive to suggest this should be considered before you accept that God is actually talking to you.

^Add message | Report | Message poster capsium Wed 11-Jun-14 09:05:48
Hak Why offensive? To globally assume dysfunction / illness for a group of people, without even examining them, is IMO offensive, as it is tantamount to prejudice.^

Symptoms of a particular illness, are only symptoms of that particular illness, when it is established someone is suffering from that particular illness.

For example, if a person was short sighted, their visual perception is not what it should be. They might imagine a person from a distance is one of their relatives, but only when they get closer, realize they are not. This would not be classed a a psychotic hallucination, as it is a result of their short sightedness. Their symptoms of seeing someone as someone else are symptoms of shortsightedness.

My point here is, essentially, that an assumption of psychosis should not take precedence over considering other explanations, in the first instance. To do this would be showing bias.

So, you understand that religious belief is a subset of the large family of supernatural beliefs.

I never claimed any different. I said this in reply to Garlic, who said,

"Heh, capsium, I was thinking of those too! Most (all?) abuses like that have been created & justified under religious cultures"

"I'm still maintaining that your statement is only true when the culture adheres to supernatural beliefs."

The point I was making was that not all superstitious beliefs are religious ones, so the abuses have not been justified solely under religious cultures.

"an assumption of psychosis should not take precedence over considering other explanations, in the first instance. To do this would be showing bias."

Of course I am biased towards reality. So shoot me

If you hear voices, even if your initial assumption is that God is talking to you, promise us that you will seek professional help if the voice starts telling you to get a knife from the kitchen and start slaughtering people. Other than that, enjoy, I guess.