Supernatural and fantasy thinking about religion. Is it good or evil? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally by activity where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


Communities








Learn more about DebateIsland.com's EdTech solution aimed at Middle Schools and High Schools, DebateIsland Education, here!

Supernatural and fantasy thinking about religion. Is it good or evil?

Debate Information

Supernatural and fantasy thinking about religion. Is it good or evil?


We can scientifically explain the supernatural itch that some allow to control their thinking.

 

In children, this might be a good way of expanding their minds, but adults are asked to put away the things of children, which, to me, includes supernatural and fantasy thinking.

I use these to show substance dualism. I see this as a useful trait for us in nature but not for our spiritual and religious sides.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWx_uVDh4Cw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IqYHiejTVM

 

I see thinking supernaturally as a deterrent to knowing god, even as I promote fantasy thinking in the seeking of the best rulers and laws to live by, which is a good definition for god. After all, Moses, not that he was real, came down from the mountain with rules and laws and not some fantasy supernatural god.  

 

The laws on earth can never be the same laws as in heaven and we can never reach the pinnacle of as above, so below.  

Do you see supernatural thinking as childish or adult thinking?

 

Do you see supernatural thinking in childish as good?

 

Do you see supernatural thinking in adults as evil?


Regards
DL




Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • AlofRIAlofRI 1434 Pts   -  
    It seems to me that, having a conversation with a talking, burning bush, is about a "supernatural" as it gets. Just saying.
    GnosticChristianPlaffelvohfen
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5062 Pts   -  
    I think that there is definitely some benefit to supernatural thinking if ti results in some desirable behavior that is advantageous.

    For example, if you believe that eating raw or recently killed meat will anger the animal's spirit, then that leads you to cook the meat first preventing disease and parasites then that is a useful superstition. However this thinking doesn't replace the true knowledge that sickness isn't caused by spirits but by microorganism, then holding on to that superstition starts to be a burden because it prevents you from achieving further understanding.
    GnosticChristianK_MichaelpiloteerAlofRI
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 225 Pts   -  
    AlofRI said:
    It seems to me that, having a conversation with a talking, burning bush, is about a "supernatural" as it gets. Just saying.
    I agree, from a literalist POV.

    From an esoteric POV, it makes all the sense in the world.

    All it means to me is that Moses put his ideas to the fire of debate and thought and purified his thinking.

    He blew it of course with an inferior set of commandments, but for the times, it was not that bad.

    It more or less followed the reasoning of older and wiser traditions from Sumer and Egypt.

    The Book of the Dead has an almost identical set of commandments and a lot better way of thinking of life after death.

    Regards
    DL  
    AlofRI
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 225 Pts   -  
    I think that there is definitely some benefit to supernatural thinking if ti results in some desirable behavior that is advantageous.

    For example, if you believe that eating raw or recently killed meat will anger the animal's spirit, then that leads you to cook the meat first preventing disease and parasites then that is a useful superstition. However this thinking doesn't replace the true knowledge that sickness isn't caused by spirits but by microorganism, then holding on to that superstition starts to be a burden because it prevents you from achieving further understanding.

    Indeed. I see you showing the difference between holding a belief as a child, for protection, and then allowing your mind to grow up away from it.

    This link speaks to that to a point.



    Regards
    DL
  • ScienceRulesScienceRules 931 Pts   -  
    Your love became a chorus played only by my memory.
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 225 Pts   -  
    To what, and why?

    Regards
    DL
  • piloteerpiloteer 1327 Pts   -  
    @GnosticChristian

    Having some kind of respect for the supernatural is definitely needed when art is concerned. I love objectively based reasoning, and I try and use it when needed, but I believe that we are all artists first and foremost, and without a taste for the absurd, that makes you a bad artist, and therefore a bad person.    
    K_MichaelGnosticChristian
  • piloteerpiloteer 1327 Pts   -  
    AlofRI said:
    It seems to me that, having a conversation with a talking, burning bush, is about a "supernatural" as it gets. Just saying.
    I'm guessing this person is a Gnostic Christian based on their profile name, so how we think of a normal Christian doesn't apply to this person. So what you may have considered a tongue and cheek jab at them, was not taken as one.  
    GnosticChristian
  • K_MichaelK_Michael 114 Pts   -  
    @piloteer

    we are all artists first and foremost, and without a taste for the absurd, that makes you a bad artist, and therefore a bad person.    

    First of all, being a bad artist doesn't make you a bad person. Being a bad person has to do with morality, and being a bad artist relates to skill and mindset. I am an aspiring author, which is a type of artistry, but I know people who don't express themselves artistically at all because they're afraid to try and fail or some other reason. I think that this attitude is limiting to their personality and their happiness, but they are NOT bad people.

    Second of all, I don't believe that you need "a taste for the absurd" to be a good artist. Fiction like what I write relies on the suspension of disbelief, but there is nothing absurd about using my imagination. I happen to like seeing absurd things, but I love things that aren't absurd as well.
    GnosticChristian
    "We're all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." 
  • piloteerpiloteer 1327 Pts   -   edited July 2020
    @K_Michael

    Your objective manner of assessing my argument wasn't a good assessment. You would need some form of abstract concepts for a more fitting assessment.  

     I agree that when YOUR standard of morality based merit is applied, those people who are not good at verbal expression absolutely are not bad just because of their lack of verbal skill. Simply basing my feelings on whether one is good or not based on their ability to communicate verbally is an awful thing to do according to your standard of morality. But I am not basing my argument on your traditional standard of morality, or any morality at all. I am basing it on a radical standard of artistry and whether it is aesthetically pleasing has no bearing on my argument.

    Your thoughts on morality probably differ from mine because I do not believe morals, or lack thereof makes one good or bad. What truly makes one good or bad is how many people they can get to have some form of respect for them through communication. The best method for attaining that from people you did not know at birth is through communication in some form or another.

     You may know people who are afraid to express themselves to you, but are they actually afraid to express themselves at all? Are they mute and refuse to ever write anything down? Do they not ever use any body language or facial expressions? Those are also forms of expression, therefore art forms. Have you ever considered the notion that those people may have trouble with verbal expression, yet they are highly advanced at the other forms of expression I mentioned, therefore they are actually very inept at expressing themselves? Have you actually met someone who was actually mute, and didn't point or make hand gestures or try the best they can to communicate and instead made no eye contact and made sure they were as inanimate as possible?

    You only took my argument at face value, but if you want to become an author, that type of assessment may become a handicap. Without a sense of the abstract, and even a sense of beyond abstract as a tool for juxtaposition on abstract ideas and concepts, you may have trouble. Not saying you can't get the job done without it, but for many (especially authors) juxtaposition of relative concepts is a make or break issue.       

    You are correct, literature in all forms is art, so your aspiration to be an author is commendable and I wish you the best of luck. But what is literature? It's just the communication of ideas in text. The keyword there is communication. Even something as simple as verbally asking for an ice coffee through an intercom at a drive through is communication, therefore it is some form of art. I myself am a writer (not published, just a hobby), and a musician (guitar-keyboard-digital music) , and I draw and paint from time to time. It is my opinion that the words, "musician", and "author", and "painter" or "sketch artist", are all elitist words to make certain people feel better about themselves for being artists, but doing things that the bulk of society does often anyway. We use text messaging, we draw, we whistle, we verbally describe situations, and some of us choose to write our descriptions of situations. We are all artists and so the word artist is superfluous and elitist. We are ALL artists.                
     
  • piloteerpiloteer 1327 Pts   -  
    @K_Michael

    As an after thought, I would highly encourage you to read Kafka. Even for non-fiction writers his juxtaposition may help you get a better concept of description. Kafka would let a reader know about a detail that isn't actually discernable because of a lack of lighting or something is obscuring their vision, or even some other phenom that is causing some sort of obstruction of the real facts, and then he would point out how a character would only have the obscured reality to make decisions with.   



     
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3947 Pts   -   edited July 2020
    I think that all thinking grounded in myths, emotions, wishes, etc. and not in cold and pragmatic reason is deeply problematic. Religion is just one of the mediums that breed such thinking, but it is far from being the only one. Same kind of thinking puts people in decade-long debt pits, gets them to support various authoritarian ideologies, gets them smoking, drinking, using drugs, eating unhealthy food even though they know it is bad for them, etc.

    If everyone approached life, by large, through lenses of rigorous logic, then 99.9% of human problems would be solved almost instantly. But as long as people cling to old traditions, superstitions, ideologies and use their gut to tell them what they should do, as opposed to brain - humanity will always function at a small fraction of its optimal capacity.
    GnosticChristianPlaffelvohfen
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 225 Pts   -  
    piloteer said:
    @GnosticChristian

    Having some kind of respect for the supernatural is definitely needed when art is concerned. I love objectively based reasoning, and I try and use it when needed, but I believe that we are all artists first and foremost, and without a taste for the absurd, that makes you a bad artist, and therefore a bad person.    
    Art uses our imaginations and creativity. It does not rely on an imaginary supernatural worlds being real.

    If an artists paints a heaven or god, or if any theist says something of god, he is lying about it.

    Regards
    DL
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 225 Pts   -  
    piloteer said:
    AlofRI said:
    It seems to me that, having a conversation with a talking, burning bush, is about a "supernatural" as it gets. Just saying.
    I'm guessing this person is a Gnostic Christian based on their profile name, so how we think of a normal Christian doesn't apply to this person. 
    Correct.

    Christians idol worship a genocidal and infanticidal prick of a god and have a homophobic and misogynous religion, while Gnostic Christians are way more moral and see Yahweh and his religion as quite corrupted and immoral.

    This is a truth as confirmed by Christians always running away from moral discussions.

    They are moral cowards with a corrupted moral sense.

    Regards
    DL
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 225 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:

    If everyone approached life, by large, through lenses of rigorous logic, then 99.9% of human problems would be solved almost instantly. 

    I agree with most of your points.

    If our governments tightened their fraud laws and rid us of the lying preachers, most preachers, then the Noble Lie would die and we would not have to tolerate immoral fascist religions like Christianity and Islam.

    Regards
    DL
  • piloteerpiloteer 1327 Pts   -   edited July 2020
    @GnosticChristian

    I never mentioned anything about art needing imaginary supernatural worlds to be real. I'm just arguing that a sense of absurdity or surrealism helps as a gauge or juxtaposition in art. Often artists will purposely fade the line between reality and fantasy, and that is what is used as juxtaposition. Kafka was a master of doing that. 

    I do know that there is art in religion, and whatever the themes or ideals of that religion would be, you'd want to portray them in an artistic manner. Sometimes using fantasy in that manner is needed to demonstrate your message. Whether it is religious art, or not, it still holds true. Therefore, I fail to see how it could be considered evil.  

    It is believed that Bhudda was fat from all of his wisdom. But obviously we know that wisdom doesn't make someone fat, but eating to much does. There is nothing evil about that fantasy, is there?   
  • K_MichaelK_Michael 114 Pts   -   edited July 2020
    @piloteer

    Thanks for the recommendation, it's been on my list for a while now. 

    I don't disagree that "We are ALL artists." if we are defining art as any form of self-expression. However, my main two points were that:
    1. Being a bad artist doesn't make you a bad person.
    Based on your first response I believe we will have to agree to disagree.
    2. A "taste for the absurd" is not required. If any form of self-expression is art, then absurdity has nothing to do with it. An essay by Richard Dawkins is just as good as a Dr. Suess book or something equally silly.
    You didn't bring the taste for the absurd back up in your responses.
    Without a sense of the abstract, and even a sense of beyond abstract as a tool for juxtaposition on abstract ideas and concepts, you may have trouble.
    Here you mention the abstract, but that's different.


    In regards to this paragraph
    You may know people who are afraid to express themselves to you, but are they actually afraid to express themselves at all? Are they mute and refuse to ever write anything down? Do they not ever use any body language or facial expressions? Those are also forms of expression, therefore art forms. Have you ever considered the notion that those people may have trouble with verbal expression, yet they are highly advanced at the other forms of expression I mentioned, therefore they are actually very inept at expressing themselves? Have you actually met someone who was actually mute, and didn't point or make hand gestures or try the best they can to communicate and instead made no eye contact and made sure they were as inanimate as possible?
    There is a difference between literally expressing nothing and being afraid to. Some people try to hide their emotions in every way possible because they don't think it's ok to share that, so they are withdrawn both in speech and body language. I knew a girl who was the class clown but sat alone at lunch, looking like she was trying to hide. Everyone knew her name, but no one sat with her, no one supported her. Is the false front art, or is it a defense mechanism? Is it self-expression to lie and hide your insecurities? I'm curious to know what your opinion is.


    Addendum
    Looking back, it feels as if you have shifted the goalposts from the original post I responded to. There, you said
    Having some kind of respect for the supernatural is definitely needed when art is concerned.
    So are you saying I need to respect the supernatural in order to express myself? That doesn't seem particularly necessary to me. 

    GnosticChristianpiloteerPlaffelvohfen
    "We're all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." 
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 225 Pts   -  
    piloteer said:
    @GnosticChristian

     There is nothing evil about that fantasy, is there?   
    No. I agree, but artists do not believe their fantasy thinking to be seeing reality and using it against the adherents of a religion.

    An artist does not create a genocidal god that must be believed in or one goes to hell. He also does not create a homophobic and misogynous religion that has to grow by inquisitions as it has no moral or persuasive arguments.

    Regards
    DL

    piloteer
  • piloteerpiloteer 1327 Pts   -  
    @GnosticChristian

    Whether an artist uses their art to oppress people is neither here nor there. It's not the supernatural aspect of religion that is evil. It is the evil acts that are committed by people that are. I understand that what you dislike about Christianity is the oppressive nature of it, but the supernatural aspect of it is not where your gripe is. Other peaceful religions also have supernatural concepts and beliefs just as Christianity does, but you don't often see a Buddhist monk shooting up an abortion clinic in the name of Buddha, do you?

     Oppressive concepts aren't necessarily derived from supernatural beliefs all the time. You don't have to be religious at all to be hateful toward gay people. Homophobia is also rooted in many cultures. It is a social phenomena. Obviously certain religious zealots do propagate those sentiments even further, but not all atheists are accepting of gay people and women's rights or other cultures either.        

    GnosticChristian
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 225 Pts   -  
    piloteer said:
    @GnosticChristian

    Whether an artist uses their art to oppress people is neither here nor there. It's not the supernatural aspect of religion that is evil. It is the evil acts that are committed by people that are. I understand that what you dislike about Christianity is the oppressive nature of it, but the supernatural aspect of it is not where your gripe is. Other peaceful religions also have supernatural concepts and beliefs just as Christianity does, but you don't often see a Buddhist monk shooting up an abortion clinic in the name of Buddha, do you?

     Oppressive concepts aren't necessarily derived from supernatural beliefs all the time. You don't have to be religious at all to be hateful toward gay people. Homophobia is also rooted in many cultures. It is a social phenomena. Obviously certain religious zealots do propagate those sentiments even further, but not all atheists are accepting of gay people and women's rights or other cultures either.        

    Belief in the supernatural is delusional thinking and is thus evil.

    It is indeed the harm that the beliers of such idiocy do, as they are acting on supernatural orders.

    Oppression is evil, but that is not my main focus. The immoral tenet the Christians follow is my pet peeve. 

    Buddha was a man, not a god, and my Buddhists friends do not believe in a supernatural realm. 

    True that homophobia and misogyny are not restricted to believers, but do try to remember how long the religious have been the vast majority and they have institutionalized that hate in their ideology.

    Regards
    DL


    piloteer
  • piloteerpiloteer 1327 Pts   -  
    @GnosticChristian

    I'm not sure who your friends are, but can they be considered a fair representative group for the ideals and culture of Buddhism? Maybe your friends do not believe in mystical realms, but do they, like many Buddhists and Hindus believe that they will be reborn as a different animal on this earth? I myself can find no nefarious clarion call to violent action that can come from the idea that we will be reborn. Not to say others cannot find one, but I'd advise you not to hold your breath while you're waiting.     

    Are you absolutely sure misogyny and homophobia were institutionalized by religion, or were those cultural circumstances that existed even before those religions did? I think we both know that women's rights and gay rights haven't had a great track record before modern times..
    GnosticChristian
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 225 Pts   -  
    piloteer said:
    @GnosticChristian

    I'm not sure who your friends are, but can they be considered a fair representative group for the ideals and culture of Buddhism? Maybe your friends do not believe in mystical realms, but do they, like many Buddhists and Hindus believe that they will be reborn as a different animal on this earth? I myself can find no nefarious clarion call to violent action that can come from the idea that we will be reborn. Not to say others cannot find one, but I'd advise you not to hold your breath while you're waiting.     

    Are you absolutely sure misogyny and homophobia were institutionalized by religion, or were those cultural circumstances that existed even before those religions did? I think we both know that women's rights and gay rights haven't had a great track record before modern times..
    My friends are free thinkers and those who seek an ideal and moral ideology and will not settle for anything less.

    My friends will not believe in the supernatural because nothing can be know of it. That is why all the ancient cultures posited a mysterious god who was unknowable, unfathomable and worked in mysterious ways.

    That was the case with Christians before they stupidly began to read their myths literally.

    Reincarnation. I cannot see a god needing to have us be reborn to learn lessons. If such a god cannot find a way in one lifetime, it shows a limit to his power.

    piloteer 
    "Are you absolutely sure misogyny and homophobia were institutionalized by religion, or were those cultural circumstances that existed even before those religions did?"

    I agree that culture added to those vile traits, but if you read the bible and the Muslim holy books, you will find that they do not give women and gays equality under the law. That is institutionalized discrimination without a just cause.

    Change has been slow in our modern era because the god religions are stuck in the past eras and will not do the right thing and see all souls as created equal. 

    Regards
    DL 
  • markemarke 368 Pts   -  
    @GnosticChristian

    I see openness to the scientific possibility that God may have created the ability to think and comprehend, and not electricity or chemicals, is a sign of a mind willing to learn.
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 225 Pts   -  
    marke said:
    @GnosticChristian

    I see openness to the scientific possibility that God may have created the ability to think and comprehend, and not electricity or chemicals, is a sign of a mind willing to learn.
    There is no such idiocy from science.

    You are seeing what is not there.

    I will be happy to read any peer reviewed paper that you might have read though.

    Regards
    DL

  • markemarke 368 Pts   -  
    @GnosticChristian

    Are you suggesting that if questions about the possibility of a 6th unseen dimension arise they are to be summarily dismissed unless first passed through mob peer review?
    GnosticChristian
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 225 Pts   -  
    marke said:
    @GnosticChristian

    Are you suggesting that if questions about the possibility of a 6th unseen dimension arise they are to be summarily dismissed unless first passed through mob peer review?
    Without repeatability, which is the standard of science, yes.

    If I posit 8 dimensions, with one being hell, will you just accept it without evidence of proofs?

    Regards
    DL 

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch