Supernaturalism - choice between
'disbelief' and 'myth'
(Top Posts - Distance From Belief
in theism - 082902)

Belief - held by many, to varying degrees. But do you ever
wonder, in all of the religious indoctrination that folks have
been exposed to, since birth, have folks been trained as
regards the preferred method of disbelief?

In other words, is it possible, or plausible, that the way that
most disbelieve is as closely tied to religious indoctrination
as is the way that most believe?

I suspect this is the case, that religious indoctrination has
impacted the way that most disbelievers go about disbelieving.

- - -

For disbelievers (and believers interested in the way in which
disbelievers deal with belief), the following is offered for con-
sideration:

I recognize many prefer disbelief as a supposedly superior
position to stating supernatural beings / places are myths.

I recognize it's challenging to change strongly held views on
that as it's tempting to allow for anyone's supernatural beings
to be a possibility, based simply on the following factors ...

o the way we are raised,

o our naturalistic desires to be Gods our own selves (con-
trolling our present and our future) and to live forever in an
indescribably pleasant and fulfilling way,

o the social / cultural attribution that religious faith is a "good"
thing to have regardless of its verity or lack thereof,

o the temptation to imagine that there may be a superbeing
who created it all -and- who acts as a superfriend to those
who believe it exists

and

o the triple layer of pressure to believe (as good) / disbe-
lieve (only if you must) and be silent / disbelieve and speak
up (only if you must, but try not to do that) -but- whatever you
do, don't discuss the evidence that the de facto social / cul-
tural God of faith (and that desired immortal land of heaven
and bliss) is as mythical in one's own culture as it was and is
in all cultures in which supernaturalism has been believed /
followed for thousands of years ...

- - -

Psychologically / socially / culturally seductive, disbelief over
willingness to say supernatural beings / places are myths.
Well, at least when it comes to supernatural beings / places
in one's own culture.

However, humans seem to have less of a problem when
assessing supernatural beings / places of other cultures.

Why is that?

o programming from birth,

o the language(s) one is exposed to,

o the society / culture one is exposed to, with the designated
supernatural beings / places treated as icons of admiration,

o the explanations pronounced as answers for unknowns that
one is exposed to when too young to be able to ascertain what
life is all about.

- - -

Nevertheless, knowing that this is a case that is challenging
to make, I'm willing to give it a go (again) . . .

What is God? Key issue, as it's a word folks toss around
like an invisible football.

For example, if someone says "I believe God digests my
food and answers my requests and loves me and cares for
me and lets me get sick for my own good and follows me
around and helps me deal with bullies and has 1 son and
sent that son to die for my sins and all folks that love God
end up with God forever and all folks that don't love God
end up immortally doomed and God likes to toss rocks at
earth on occasion just to let us know God exists and our
Earth is the sole locale for life and our space-time contin-
uum is God's creation and every event in history is God's
doing and God talks to some folks (prophets) and God likes
people to worship it and God likes people to give money to
it and all downsides of life are a God test and (hold on, I'll
get back to you with more God stuff) ..."

I can't help but wonder why it is that some insist on taking
pride in disbelief in all that instead of stating the obvious ...

God is "make believe".

When it comes right down to it, from the statement of evi-
dence and the determination as to the nature of the multi-
tude of irreconcilable attributions credited to any God,
they're either real (and justified based on affirming tangible
evidence) or "make believe" (and unjustified based on evi-
dence that humans merely made up the supernatural beings /
places).

Gods (and associated attributions) are either "make believe"
or real.

If you disbelieve that Gods (and associated attributions)
are real, if your disbelief is verity, Gods are "make believe".

If Gods are "make believe", there is no definition for Gods
that can be veritable / experienced and described based on
a personal revelation of tangible reality, for anyone can ima-
gine anything.

If disbelief in Gods is wrong, if Gods (and associated attri-
butions) really exist, what is it that really exists?

What justified and real meaning can one assign to it?

None, for it cannot exist or be defined in any veritable way
until or unless it is evidenced and experienced as a reality
rather than as imaginary beings / places.

Gods are, in essence, devoid of any realistic merit whatso-
ever, for anyone can claim anything for it (and the claims are
all-but endless regarding the supernatural). Claims do not
a verity make.

An actual God that doesn't do a perfect job of being non-
existent, now that would make for a verity.

Someone says "God said __________" ... The intelligent,
logical, and reasonable reply is "Why should I believe
1) there is a God, 2) that such a thing as God mates to a
description apart from "make believe", and 3) for that God
that you've accurately defined, assuming you can do so, it
said what you claim it said?"

Just believe? No, sorry, that's unacceptable, for someone
claiming ultimate authority (and the implications of power
and control derived therefrom) must *not* be believed
without evidence, for to believe in such claims is to become
as sheep led to the slaughter, a mere subject of human
manipulation and desire to control others based on *claimed*
ultimate authority, sans any evidence of any kind.

It's submission to emotional blackmail to follow claims of
contact with an imaginary superfriend and claims that one
knows what their imaginary superfriend desires.

If *evidence*, testable / veritable / examinable / doubtable,
is presented, then and only then can it take on some char-
acteristic apart from human imagination.

I assure you, a God *evidenced* is a God worth listening
to / responding to based on *evidence* of what it actually
is.

A God made up in the minds of men and women is a God
that's "make believe" and unworthy of anything but designa-
tion as myth (empty claims, meaningless and unworthy if
*evidence* is absent).

I fail to see any other logical choice nor do I hold in high
regard the position of folks who claim superiority for disbelief
rather than being willing to say the over 4,000 definitions for
a being or beings called God or Gods or Goddess or God-
desses are reflections of human imagination, "make believe",
fantasy, myth, societal / cultural / religious journeys into trying
to control people via mere claims of supernatural authority.

Disbelieving in any God (as a supposedly logical superior
position to saying Gods are myths) is like someone who
prefers disbelief in Santa Claus as logically superior to
saying Santa Claus doesn't exist. Pure silliness, as Santa
Claus is "make believe" as are Gods (see internet lists of
irreconcilable and innumerable definitions for such a thing
as God or Gods or Goddess or Goddesses or other super-
natural beings / places).

Supernatural beings / places exist solely in the imagination
of human beings until / unless they escape that locale.

Claims do not a God make, no matter if it's claimed to sit
on one's shoulder as a superfriend -or- if it's claimed to be
the be-all end-all of all. It's plainly imaginary until / unless
it's evident.

Once one succumbs to the social / cultural / religious pres-
sure to believe any (or some) magic being might be real,
one has defied logic and reason and placed chosen magic
beings into a possibly non-imaginary category. Then, one is
faced with the challenge of defining what, exactly, is it about
all the irreconcilable claims that belongs outside the realm
of the human imagination, why only chosen ones, and what
differentiates the chosen ones from the unchosen ones?

Are the chosen ones arbitrary, a reflection of the society /
culture / religions one is influenced by? Are the chosen
ones really any different than the rejected ones? Aren't
they all equally imaginary / "make believe" / claims without
*evidence*?

I submit there is not one iota of claim about the supernatural
beings / places that exists outside the realm of human imag-
ination. Not one. Imagination can have no worthy meaning with-
out substance, without verity, without something real being
a part of the deal. Some hook, something that's substantiated,
not merely claimed.

Something superior to any claim someone might make, not
something for which anyone's claim is just as empty as any
other claim. There is no verity in mere claims, no matter how
powerful and all-encompassing and all-important the claims
are for magic all-powerful know-all be-all end-all beings and
magic places.

To close, disbelief in imaginary beings as superior to saying
they don't exist unless / until they evidence themselves?

Sorry, that position may make believers in supernatural
beings happy, but it certainly fails to produce any superna-
tural being or supernatural place, superior above all other
definitions, apart from the confines of human imagination.

Once one opens the door to one, no matter how hard one
tries to shut that door, every imaginary being / place / fantasy
conceivable has an equal right to walk right through that crack,
and there's no logical way to stop any of them.

Allah - - - Satan - - - Jinns - - - Christs - - - Holy Spirits - - -
Zeus - - - God - - - Siva - - - Angels - - - Demons - - - Ghosts
- - - Goblins - - - Gremlins - - - they just keep coming on and
on and on unless one is willing to logically and reasonably
surmise that all supernatural claims are equally empty with-
out evidence, the ones of the days gone by, the ones of
other cultures, the ones of the current day, and the ones
of one's own culture.

No evidence? No reason to allow for any supernatural be-
ings / places to be existent, for an imagination embellished
with ultimate power ~ ultimate promises ~ ultimate threats
does not a reality make. If one imagines an invisible friend
who is powerless, a tiny little thing, that's = to an awesome
be-all end-all creator of all, really. It's all imaginary, no mat-
ter the SIZE of the claim. The bigger the claim, the bigger
the myth.

On the other hand, it sure is tempting to just disbelieve in
such things, as folks tend to be much kinder to such a posi-
tion, as it leaves them that out that maybe, just maybe, no
matter how superstitious and unproven and fantasy-like
are one's favorite supernatural beings / places . . .

. . . well, you know that trail . . . "religion city" - insert favorite
magic beings / places here _______, _______, _______,
_______, _______, _______, _______, _______, and
dismiss all others as irrelevant / non-existent / misinterpre-
tations of the "real" magic beings / places . . . unless, of
course, one takes the ecumenical path and allows for any
(or arbitrarily selected) supernatural beings / places to be
OK.