Is Satan Happy? How Happy? Extremely Happy?

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If the supernatural exists, is it really supernatural? Everything else that is known to exist, is natural as far as can be determined by examination. What, other than a super prefix and the fact that we cannot explain it (not exclusive to supernatural stuff) differentiates the natural from the supernatural? Is it that it allows a religious version of Superman?

"Supernatural" is just a claim. In my way of thinking it should get the same response as "abracadabra."

 

[Politesse]

Do you think Wican is true for example?

I was regularly participating in a Georgic Wiccan coven until quite recently. I don't recall "truth claims" being much of an issue, our members were from many different backgrounds and held many different points of view on the "literal truth" of magic, ritual, etc. But that waa just dinner table conversation. What tied the group together was not identical beliefs but common practice, and by extension, the experiences one tends to have as a result of that practice.

 

[Politesse]

Gandalf is probably a synthesis of Tolkien himself expressed in his deep knowledge of myths . Not exactly a profound insight, obvious for an author. From what I read of Doyle he was actually a medical doctor who took some cases, and saved an innocent man from hanging. Holmes and Watson both partly Doyle. The detective and the chronicler

And now we're having a conversation about what Gandalf actually is, rather than whether he has credentials. A much more interesting conversation in my opinion, were I to follow up on it with a blistering critique of your juvenile Auteur Theory approach to literature.

 

[Elixir]

If the supernatural exists, is it really supernatural? Everything else that is known to exist, is natural as far as can be determined by examination. What, other than a super prefix and the fact that we cannot explain it (not exclusive to supernatural stuff) differentiates the natural from the supernatural? Is it that it allows a religious version of Superman?

"Supernatural" is just a claim. In my way of thinking it should get the same response as "abracadabra."

Should, I agree. But abracadabra is just gibberish, while supernatural is a compound word composed of words with known etymologies and historical meanings, which should allude to the current meaning of “supernatural“ - but they don’t.
Because - what you said; abracadabra. It’s a hijacking. I won’t stand for it, nor will I take it lying down! So here I sit.
That’s my position.

 

[abaddon]

"Nature" is a label for a complete system, the one described by science.

"Supernatural" is a label for another system "beyond" that one. It seems necessary to some folk because they think spooky hands must reach in and give this 'dumb stuff' that matter is alleged to be a shove, to make it 'go'.

Spooky hands reaching in from some world beyond into this world would leave fingerprints.

So does a beyond-nature realm exist? Maybe. But it doesn't matter if it does because without the fingerprints of the spooky hands, there's no good reason to believe it.

 

[Elixir]

"Nature" is a label for a complete system, the one described by science.

"Supernatural" is a label for another system "beyond" that one.

So it's a placeholder for "yet to be described by science".
Yawn. A superfluous term if ever there was.

So does it exist? Maybe. But it doesn't matter if it does because without the fingerprints of the spooky hands, there's no good reason to believe it.

Those fingerprints would be... uh ... natural, I assume? I mean, if they are going to be reliably and repeatably observed, right?
Wouldn't that bespeak a natural origin?
I think you can pretty much toss it ("the supernatural") out, except for entertainment purposes.

 

[Politesse]

"Nature" is a label for a complete system, the one described by science.

"Supernatural" is a label for another system "beyond" that one. It seems necessary to some folk because they think spooky hands must reach in and give this 'dumb stuff' that matter is alleged to be a shove, to make it 'go'.

Do you feel that someone has "supernatural beliefs" even if they themselves do not believe that their philosophical conclusions violate the order of nature?

 

[abaddon]

"Nature" is a label for a complete system, the one described by science.

"Supernatural" is a label for another system "beyond" that one. It seems necessary to some folk because they think spooky hands must reach in and give this 'dumb stuff' that matter is alleged to be a shove, to make it 'go'.

Do you feel that someone has "supernatural beliefs" even if they themselves do not believe that their philosophical conclusions violate the order of nature?

No I don't. I was thinking of traditional theism only. I'm aware of naturalistic religions, and nondual ones that don't take sides in this either-or.

But traditional theism bifurcates reality and I think that's a problem worth pointing out. They put their god into another realm "beyond", and have to pray for salvation from nature by that distant god. The better religions, IMO, emphasize the oneness of all... not the otherness of their god (which ends up leaving nature as a kind of hell-realm with devils in it).

 

[lostone]

Monism tends to encourage belief in a neutral universe without gods - atheism or pantheism

 

[steve_bank]

Gandalf is probably a synthesis of Tolkien himself expressed in his deep knowledge of myths . Not exactly a profound insight, obvious for an author. From what I read of Doyle he was actually a medical doctor who took some cases, and saved an innocent man from hanging. Holmes and Watson both partly Doyle. The detective and the chronicler

And now we're having a conversation about what Gandalf actually is, rather than whether he has credentials. A much more interesting conversation in my opinion, were I to follow up on it with a blistering critique of your juvenile Auteur Theory approach to literature.

You equated a discussion of Gandalf to existence of gods and supernatural.

When you identified as a Pagan-Christian you refused to reveal details of the belief, so I will not ask what you actually believe about the supernatural or speculate.

In the 70s I read Evans-Wentz's books on Tibetan Buddhism. An anthropologist who emrsed himself in Tibetan Buddhism and its culture. I believe he became a believer in the supernatural of which Tibetan Buddhism is riddled.

 

[Politesse]

When you identified as a Pagan-Christian you refused to reveal details of the belief, so I will not ask what you actually believe about the supernatural or speculate.

My position has not changed a great deal since then. It's true I was raised Christian, and that I have been a practicing Pagan for some several years. And as I have made clear to you many, many times, I'm agnostic on most specific points of religion. I don't think arguing about the literal truth of religious tenets is either as interesting or as important as considering their deeper meaning and what one can learn from the religious traditions of the world.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Do you feel that someone has "supernatural beliefs" even if they themselves do not believe that their philosophical conclusions violate the order of nature?

After getting to know someone and discovering they are of a christian persuasion I often ask them if they believe in ghosts. I've never asked them if they think that believing so violates any natural laws, is something beyond nature, wholly mysterious and not able to be understood or measured. That would be interesting and I'll give it a try at the next opportunity. I've never met anyone who was agnostic about ghosts.

 

[Politesse]

Do you feel that someone has "supernatural beliefs" even if they themselves do not believe that their philosophical conclusions violate the order of nature?

After getting to know someone and discovering they are of a christian persuasion I often ask them if they believe in ghosts. I've never asked them if they think that believing so violates any natural laws, is something beyond nature, wholly mysterious and not able to be understood or measured. That would be interesting and I'll give it a try at the next opportunity. I've never met anyone who was agnostic about ghosts.

Ghosts certainly exist, the only question is where.

 

[bilby]

Ghosts certainly exist, the only question is where.

 

[steve_bank]

As snug as a bug in a rug. As happy as a clam he is.

 

[SIB]

well, it makes more sense that Satan and god are the same thing to me.

list only the bad that any of us have done. Then list the why we did them. To the corona virus we match Satan. In facth humans are the only thing I know that activity "knows the right way" to counter what nature shows us.

Not to mention my kids. I mean when I said said you have to eat your dinner before the ice-cream ... wow ..Satan itself.

Maybe god is growing, learning, and striving to be, at least, no worse than yesterday. To me what's more funny is a human stating they know what's best. lmao ... no child can suffer. Yeah, even god wishes that.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Satan went into psychotherapy in early 2017.

MD: Good afternoon. My receptionist said you'll be paying with a card?
SATAN: Right.
MD: She said you presented an AmEx card issued by Kresge's. Is Kresge's still in business?
SATAN: It's a good card.
MD: Are they in business?
SATAN: I said it's a good card.
MD: Okay. What specifically brings you here?
SATAN: Everything. A lot of things, actually. I don't...I don't take the same pleasure in my work.
MD: By work, you mean, stuff like, damnation, setting curses, mischief, causing dissension, and the like?
SATAN: Right.
MD: Okay. Can you pinpoint a time or event where you first experienced this dropoff in energy?
SATAN: January.
MD: January. Okay. What was going on in January?
SATAN (long pause): That man. Him. That's what he is, a man, isn't he?
MD: You have a competitor?
SATAN: You could say that. Yes, you could say that exactly. It used to be ME. ME, Satan, Old Scratch, Beelzebub. I was the one they shivered over. I could get the little kiddies and the old ladies to scream in their nightmares. Me!! Now, not so much. HE is the one they talk about.
MD: How does that make you feel?
SATAN: How the fuck do you think it makes me feel? Listen, man, I invented lying! I invented hatred! Worship of money? Grabbing pussy? Tearing babies out of their mama's arms? I invented all that! Am I getting the credit for that, now? Am I?
MD: But you still have your powers.
SATAN: Meaningless. Meaningless. I can make you sick, I can kill your kittens, but I want to get into your mind, I want you to obey me. This man took that away from me.
MD: You may have Trump envy. If you do, you're in good company -- for you. Kim Jong Un's got it. Assad's got it. The Saudis are starting to get it. It's going to be very big in therapy, real soon.
SATAN: Isn't that swell. I'm part of a wave. Well, it's killin' me, man. I get up every day and I just don't care about evil. Me!! Evil!! That used to be my whole day.
MD: Have you considered hiring some PR? Getting yourself indicted? That kind of thing can get you noticed in a hurry.
SATAN: Anything I think of, this man does it first. He could shoot a man on Fifth Avenue, start a revolution, and blow the Pope, and he'd only be bigger.
(Intercom buzzes. MD picks up phone.)
MD (short pause.) Thanks. (Hangs up.) My receptionist says your card didn't go through.
(Scene of indescribable apocolyptic mayhem ensues. Office building collapses. Preempted on local news by Trump appearance.)

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

"Nature" is a label for a complete system, the one described by science.

"Supernatural" is a label for another system "beyond" that one.

So it's a placeholder for "yet to be described by science".
Yawn. A superfluous term if ever there was.

So does it exist? Maybe. But it doesn't matter if it does because without the fingerprints of the spooky hands, there's no good reason to believe it.

Those fingerprints would be... uh ... natural, I assume? I mean, if they are going to be reliably and repeatably observed, right?
Wouldn't that bespeak a natural origin?
I think you can pretty much toss it ("the supernatural") out, except for entertainment purposes.

Supernatural was a word derived from Latin about the 13th century, the times of Aquinas. God was above and beyond nature, God created nature and its laws. The idea is somewhat complex involving God's sovereignty and simplicity.

 

[bilby]

Supernatural was a word derived from Latin about the 13th century, the times of Aquinas. God was above and beyond nature, God created nature and its laws. The idea is somewhat complex involving God's sovereignty and simplicity.

Like so much medieval philosophy, it hides the fact that it's irrational nonsense behind a screen of complexity that is not warranted, and serves no other function than to obscure its central contradiction.

A supernatural phenomenon either:

a) has a reliable and detectable effect on nature, in which case those effects are a part of nature and subject to investigation just as any other phenomenon in nature is; or

b) has no reliable and/or no detectable effect on nature, in which case it is indistinguishable in every way from a nonexistent phenomenon.

The term "supernatural" is therefore meaningful only as a shorthand for "I want to believe some irrational nonsense, and you can't stop me!"

It's a rather sad attempt to put those elements of one's belief that are untenable, (in this case, God) beyond anyone else's scrutiny. As if declaring them un-examinable doesn't have the exact same consequences and implications as declaring them nonexistent.

 

[James Brown]

Science asks questions that may not be answered.

Religion gives answers that may not be questioned.