Not exact matches
Whatever one's beliefs, we are starting to recogize that
supernaturalism in any form is
not a reliable means to build a universal consensus.Any proposition that relies on faith can and will be twisted by unscrupulous individuals for their own gain.
Thus Martin concludes, for example, that N. T. Wright's approach to Jesus, which mixes
supernaturalism and ordinary biography, is just as historically valid as Sanders's method, which does
not deal with miracles or the resurrection — although, paradoxically Martin finds Wright's arguments about the resurrection very unconvincing.
My anti-theist view is
NOT based on archaic rituals and
supernaturalism that has no evidence whatsoever of reality.
(While it may have been the best possible at the time, given the assumptions and available categories, it denies the full humanity of Jesus, does
not provide a basis for understanding God's ideal relation to us, and entails all the problems of
supernaturalism, among other problems.)
This point is affirmed
not only by panexperientialism's insistence on the «ontological principle,» according to which only actualities can act (PR 19, 24, 43), but also by its rejection of both dualism and
supernaturalism.
If, whenever personal will steps in to do something that nature by itself would
not do, we call that supernatural, we obviously can
not get
supernaturalism out of religion, because we can
not get it out of life.
Supernaturalism is
not the stronghold of religion.
They were nonpolitical,
not in the sense of segregation from political life and interests, as the signs of a purely «spiritual» change in the world, say in human hearts, but in the sense of total
supernaturalism: the whole present world order, with its politics and its oppression, its hunger and its hatred, was to be completely done away.
It's easy to like True Blood, because Ball's episodic smarts are primal,
not at a remove, and he approaches
supernaturalism by emphasizing the natural over the super.
I think religion is
not natural based on a rational assessment thus I have logically identified it as mere
supernaturalism and superstition.
Likewise, when religion's
supernaturalism / superstitionism is discussed then all aspects of religion's
supernaturalism / superstitionism is and should be discussed, including contrast it to what isn't religion's
supernaturalism / superstitionism.
I have asked you what
supernaturalism is, but you haven't shown, that
supernaturalism has an existence, and as you agreed with that there is only one nature or only one naturalism (order), you have agreed that a
supernaturalism can
not exist beside nature.
When a one has naturally achieved, by one's natural capacity of reason, a metaphysical / epistemological system that has determined that to live a life of reason then one by necessity must exclusively exercise one's natural free volition to exclusively use man's natural capacity for reason exclusively on the natural world then one does
not even reject religion's
supernaturalism / superstitionism... one then has achieved the capability to say religion's
supernaturalism and superstitionism is irrelevant to their metaphysical / epistemological system.
One may say that the terms of time or space used in physics is
not physics, but that does
not mean that physicians or scientists believe in
supernaturalism.