Is belief in the supernatural an intelligent person’s game?

[Greatest I am]

Greatest I Am wrote:

The name "I Am" you might see as meaning something like, --- I think I have grown up thanks to having forced my apotheosis through Gnosis and meditation.

You meant me personally? Do you really see those words as coming out of my mouth?

Apotheosis (from Greek ἀποθέωσις from ἀποθεόω/ἀποθεῶ, apotheoo/apotheo "to deify"; in Latin deificatio "making divine"; also called divinization and deification) is the glorification of a subject to divine level and, most commonly, the treatment of a human like a god. The term has meanings in theology, where it refers to a belief, and in art, where it refers to a genre.

In theology, apotheosis refers to the idea that an individual has been raised to godlike stature. In art, the term refers to the treatment of any subject (a figure, group, locale, motif, convention or melody) in a particularly grand or exalted manner.

The term "I Am" to me simply means that I have affirmed my existence, along with every part and parcel of my being, which by the way is still in the process of evolving, becoming and coming to know myself. I am, in a sense, always in the process of "growing up". I am sometimes reminded by Life that I have not as yet grown up and perhaps never will be. I am not such a fixed entity.

Why would I prefer to think of myself as a god - or in this case, a goddess. I rather enjoy being a human being.

I believed that your username referred to God but are you saying that you have reached apotheosis?

Yes, but as you can see from how apotheosis is defined, many of the labels cannot be given to one's self. They can only be given to one.

Can I say I am divine? No. Only others can label me as such. Like Jesus, I can only ask, who do they say I am like?

We are all evolving perfection. You admitting that you are the final arbiter of your thinking and your own moral guide is, I think, a healthy claim for an adult to make.

It involves self forgiveness and a deeper self love, which helps us express our love to others.

Regards
DL

[Arcturus Descending]

Greatest I AM

Yes, but as you can see from how apotheosis is defined, many of the labels cannot be given to one's self. They can only be given to one.

lol So again, I ask you: Greatest I Am refers to whom?

Can I say I am divine? No. Only others can label me as such

.

And would you like that designation? What would you say to someone who said that you were divine?

Like Jesus, I can only ask, who do they say I am like?

I think what Christ actually asked/said was: "Who do they say I am? or Who do you say I am?

Why did Jesus ask the question? Was he confused about himself and needed clarity or did he want to know what others thought of him, of who he was?

Quite frankly, I think that that is a very good question which we could ask of one another (not you and me per se lol) but we have to be prepared to give the answer some thought, not necessarily to accept the answer but better still, we need to kind of know and trust the ones we ask to give us a balanced and impartial picture of our self.

We are all evolving perfection

Are you calling us humans "perfection" or are you saying that we are evolving toward perfection?
I am not so sure that we can ever become perfect...just better than we were perhaps.

You admitting that you are the final arbiter of your thinking and your own moral guide is, I think, a healthy claim for an adult to make.

What words did I use to give you that impression? Does being the final arbiter of my thinking mean that I am not capable of changing my mind? Is it a form of stubborn thinking where I refuse to see something different?

When it comes to certain hard questions, like should this person be taken off the ventilator because he will most probably never again have any kind of a quality life, I am not so much then the final arbiter of my thinking...well, perhaps I am at some point but I suppose that BTFAOMT does not necessarily require me to be right just to make the best ethical decision I can.

It involves self forgiveness and a deeper self love, which helps us express our love to others.

How do we come to forgive self? What does that entail?

Regards

Right back at you.

[Bob]

Jordan Peterson:
"I was once asked how I would define God. My God is the spirit that is trying to elevate Being. My God is the spirit that makes everything come together. My God is the spirit that makes order out of chaos and then recasts order when it becomes too limiting. My God is the spirit of truth incarnate. None of that is supernatural. It is instead what is most real."

[Greatest I am]

Jordan Peterson:
"I was once asked how I would define God. My God is the spirit that is trying to elevate Being. My God is the spirit that makes everything come together. My God is the spirit that makes order out of chaos and then recasts order when it becomes too limiting. My God is the spirit of truth incarnate. None of that is supernatural. It is instead what is most real."

Basing god on reality is the best way to go. It is all we need.

The supernatural is for those who have given up thinking.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Greatest I AM

Yes, but as you can see from how apotheosis is defined, many of the labels cannot be given to one's self. They can only be given to one.

lol So again, I ask you: Greatest I Am refers to whom?

Can I say I am divine? No. Only others can label me as such

.

And would you like that designation? What would you say to someone who said that you were divine?

Like Jesus, I can only ask, who do they say I am like?

I think what Christ actually asked/said was: "Who do they say I am? or Who do you say I am?

Why did Jesus ask the question? Was he confused about himself and needed clarity or did he want to know what others thought of him, of who he was?

Quite frankly, I think that that is a very good question which we could ask of one another (not you and me per se lol) but we have to be prepared to give the answer some thought, not necessarily to accept the answer but better still, we need to kind of know and trust the ones we ask to give us a balanced and impartial picture of our self.

We are all evolving perfection

Are you calling us humans "perfection" or are you saying that we are evolving toward perfection?
I am not so sure that we can ever become perfect...just better than we were perhaps.

You admitting that you are the final arbiter of your thinking and your own moral guide is, I think, a healthy claim for an adult to make.

What words did I use to give you that impression? Does being the final arbiter of my thinking mean that I am not capable of changing my mind? Is it a form of stubborn thinking where I refuse to see something different?

When it comes to certain hard questions, like should this person be taken off the ventilator because he will most probably never again have any kind of a quality life, I am not so much then the final arbiter of my thinking...well, perhaps I am at some point but I suppose that BTFAOMT does not necessarily require me to be right just to make the best ethical decision I can.

It involves self forgiveness and a deeper self love, which helps us express our love to others.

How do we come to forgive self? What does that entail?

Regards

Right back at you.

Greatest I am was tongue in cheek and comes from knowing I would be laughed at and that was my way of showing my confidence in my paradigm.

As to divine, I am the closest that you will ever likely see.

"Why did Jesus ask the question?"

Tradition said that the prophets were reborn into the new prophets.

"Are you calling us humans "perfection" or are you saying that we are evolving toward perfection?"

Both, in the sense that we are the best we can be at all points in time. We live in the best of all possible worlds because it is the only possible world given the history that got us here.

Nature always creates for the best possible end and we are living in our best end.

"What words did I use to give you that impression? Does being the final arbiter of my thinking mean that I am not capable of changing my mind? Is it a form of stubborn thinking where I refuse to see something different?"

I cannot know how you think. Final arbiter is just that regardless of how you think.

Regards
DL

[Bob]

Jordan Peterson:
"I was once asked how I would define God. My God is the spirit that is trying to elevate Being. My God is the spirit that makes everything come together. My God is the spirit that makes order out of chaos and then recasts order when it becomes too limiting. My God is the spirit of truth incarnate. None of that is supernatural. It is instead what is most real."

Basing god on reality is the best way to go. It is all we need.

The supernatural is for those who have given up thinking.

Regards
DL

The word spirit refers to the principle of conscious life; the vital principle in humans, animating the body or mediating between body and soul. I believe it is also this spirit that is meant in the Bible, whereby there is a difference if someone is said to be filled with that vitality, inasmuch that such people are inspiring and animating. Otherwise, we all have the spirit that grows in us as we grow bodily. It is the spirit that is metaphorically blown into the nostrils of the first human beings.
When Peterson says that his God is the spirit that is trying to elevate Being, the spirit that makes everything come together, the spirit that makes order out of chaos and then recasts order when it becomes too limiting or the spirit of truth incarnate, he is referring to the meaning of life being realised in ways that we can’t grasp or change. The only way we can prevent this spirit is stand in it’s way, which is what the Pharisees were accused of and it is what many scholars, preachers and priests stand in the way of today.
By only wanting a single description of reality, and ruling out another, we stand in its way. It is called by Jesus the single most serious sin.

[Arcturus Descending]

Greatest I Am,

Basing god on reality is the best way to go. It is all we need.

I am unclear as to what you mean by this. Can you elaborate and/or give me an example.

I could very well take this to mean that you are capable of "seeing" God or at least the possibility of an impersonal God because of the workings of the Universe.
Would I be wrong in this? Again, please explain what you mean above.

The supernatural is for those who have given up thinking.

Supernatural comes from the Latin word supernaturalis, meaning beyond nature. The adjective form of supernatural describes anything that pertains to or is caused by something that can't be explained by the laws of nature.


If God is included in your definition of "supernatural" then thinking about God, contemplating whether or not God exists is certainly NOT giving up thinking in my book. Automatically accepting God's existence because
others believe or because one has such a strong desire to - that to me is giving up thinking.

There have been multitudinous posts in here about God and what pertains to God. Have all of these philosophersin here stopped thinking in your estimation?

Here is a small list of some scientists who see God, not necessarily a personal one but still they "see" a God. I prefer to use the word "see" rather than believe as it holds more water.

https://magiscenter.com/23-famous-scien ... -atheists/


https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2018 ... f26a5f4f21

[Arcturus Descending]

Greatest I Am,

Greatest I am was tongue in cheek and comes from knowing I would be laughed at and that was my way of showing my confidence in my paradigm.

I think it possible that some people in here at first wondered what you meant by your username. I did and still do. If someone did laugh, would it necessarily have been YOU they were actually laughing at or just the username. I do see some distinction there.

So your paradigm refers to God as that designation or to yourself? I am still not clear as to whom you are referring with the name - God or yourself?

As to divine, I am the closest that you will ever likely see.

Can you explain this? Some might say that you think that you are absolutely handsome or something like that. Words can have different meanings at different times. Others might say that you are over-compensating for something or other which may be lacking. I suppose that your self-confidence will not allow what I say here to insult you in any way.
So, how are you divine? Or are you referring to your username which is also a reflection of God to some, not you?

Why did Jesus ask the question?"

Tradition said that the prophets were reborn into the new prophets.

That may be true but I do not know this.
I was asking you that question - not tradition or the prophets.

"Are you calling us humans "perfection" or are you saying that we are evolving toward perfection?"

Both, in the sense that we are the best we can be at all points in time.

Are we really?Perhaps this is a buddhist's way of thinking. Is it possible that when we think that way we give ourselves excuses for the things which went down in history that may have been avoided? I am only saying. I cannot know the answer to that.

We live in the best of all possible worlds because it is the only possible world given the history that got us here.

So you see your cup as being full or at least half full. What about how others have to live on the other side of the world, disease, famine, war? Or even this side of the world?

best

of the most excellent, effective, or desirable type or quality.
"the best pitcher in the league"
synonyms: finest, greatest, top, foremost, leading, preeminent, premier, prime, first, chief, principal, supreme, of the highest quality, superlative, unrivaled, second to none, without equal, nonpareil, unsurpassed, unsurpassable, peerless, matchless, unparalleled, unbeaten, unbeatable, unexcelled, optimum, optimal, ultimate, surpassing, incomparable, ideal, perfect;

I would not use any of the above adjectives to describe the world. They would show a world which is complete, highly evolved and not in flux.

Nature always creates for the best possible end and we are living in our best end.

Define what you mean by nature. You speak as though nature was conscious. What about wars, famines, Tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, et cetera.
What is the best possible end insofar as those things are concerned? If only they were "ends".

I cannot know how you think.

Why would someone come to a forum and engage in dialogue if they actually believed that words were not capable of showing the way in some respects?

I do realize though that there can be a distinction between what one thinks and how one thinks. But words help there too.

[Greatest I am]

Jordan Peterson:
"I was once asked how I would define God. My God is the spirit that is trying to elevate Being. My God is the spirit that makes everything come together. My God is the spirit that makes order out of chaos and then recasts order when it becomes too limiting. My God is the spirit of truth incarnate. None of that is supernatural. It is instead what is most real."

Basing god on reality is the best way to go. It is all we need.

The supernatural is for those who have given up thinking.

Regards
DL

The word spirit refers to the principle of conscious life; the vital principle in humans, animating the body or mediating between body and soul. I believe it is also this spirit that is meant in the Bible, whereby there is a difference if someone is said to be filled with that vitality, inasmuch that such people are inspiring and animating. Otherwise, we all have the spirit that grows in us as we grow bodily. It is the spirit that is metaphorically blown into the nostrils of the first human beings.
When Peterson says that his God is the spirit that is trying to elevate Being, the spirit that makes everything come together, the spirit that makes order out of chaos and then recasts order when it becomes too limiting or the spirit of truth incarnate, he is referring to the meaning of life being realised in ways that we can’t grasp or change. The only way we can prevent this spirit is stand in it’s way, which is what the Pharisees were accused of and it is what many scholars, preachers and priests stand in the way of today.
By only wanting a single description of reality, and ruling out another, we stand in its way. It is called by Jesus the single most serious sin.

Not surprising as it speaks of the hypocrisy and outright lying that all preachers of supernatural gods must do to sell their imaginary constructs.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Greatest I Am,

Basing god on reality is the best way to go. It is all we need.

I am unclear as to what you mean by this. Can you elaborate and/or give me an example.

I could very well take this to mean that you are capable of "seeing" God or at least the possibility of an impersonal God because of the workings of the Universe.
Would I be wrong in this? Again, please explain what you mean above.

If a god is not personal, it is not worthy of us.

All animals like us, even the lesser animals show us who their god or ideal is by emulating one of their own who has showed he or she is the fittest.

Man has to recognize that with gods or ideals, we should look to our own fittest for an example and not some impossible to emulate imaginary god.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

The supernatural is for those who have given up thinking.

Supernatural comes from the Latin word supernaturalis, meaning beyond nature. The adjective form of supernatural describes anything that pertains to or is caused by something that can't be explained by the laws of nature.


If God is included in your definition of "supernatural" then thinking about God, contemplating whether or not God exists is certainly NOT giving up thinking in my book. Automatically accepting God's existence because
others believe or because one has such a strong desire to - that to me is giving up thinking.

There have been multitudinous posts in here about God and what pertains to God. Have all of these philosophersin here stopped thinking in your estimation?

Here is a small list of some scientists who see God, not necessarily a personal one but still they "see" a God. I prefer to use the word "see" rather than believe as it holds more water.

https://magiscenter.com/23-famous-scien ... -atheists/


https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2018 ... f26a5f4f21

My best answer to this is this link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjxZ6Mr ... re=related

People who ignore evidence to believe in the supernatural are a disgrace to the human race.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Greatest I Am,

Greatest I am was tongue in cheek and comes from knowing I would be laughed at and that was my way of showing my confidence in my paradigm.

I think it possible that some people in here at first wondered what you meant by your username. I did and still do. If someone did laugh, would it necessarily have been YOU they were actually laughing at or just the username. I do see some distinction there.

So your paradigm refers to God as that designation or to yourself? I am still not clear as to whom you are referring with the name - God or yourself?

As to divine, I am the closest that you will ever likely see.

Can you explain this? Some might say that you think that you are absolutely handsome or something like that. Words can have different meanings at different times. Others might say that you are over-compensating for something or other which may be lacking. I suppose that your self-confidence will not allow what I say here to insult you in any way.
So, how are you divine? Or are you referring to your username which is also a reflection of God to some, not you?

Why did Jesus ask the question?"

Tradition said that the prophets were reborn into the new prophets.

That may be true but I do not know this.
I was asking you that question - not tradition or the prophets.

"Are you calling us humans "perfection" or are you saying that we are evolving toward perfection?"

Both, in the sense that we are the best we can be at all points in time.

Are we really?Perhaps this is a buddhist's way of thinking. Is it possible that when we think that way we give ourselves excuses for the things which went down in history that may have been avoided? I am only saying. I cannot know the answer to that.

We live in the best of all possible worlds because it is the only possible world given the history that got us here.

So you see your cup as being full or at least half full. What about how others have to live on the other side of the world, disease, famine, war? Or even this side of the world?

best

of the most excellent, effective, or desirable type or quality.
"the best pitcher in the league"
synonyms: finest, greatest, top, foremost, leading, preeminent, premier, prime, first, chief, principal, supreme, of the highest quality, superlative, unrivaled, second to none, without equal, nonpareil, unsurpassed, unsurpassable, peerless, matchless, unparalleled, unbeaten, unbeatable, unexcelled, optimum, optimal, ultimate, surpassing, incomparable, ideal, perfect;

I would not use any of the above adjectives to describe the world. They would show a world which is complete, highly evolved and not in flux.

Nature always creates for the best possible end and we are living in our best end.

Define what you mean by nature. You speak as though nature was conscious. What about wars, famines, Tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, et cetera.
What is the best possible end insofar as those things are concerned? If only they were "ends".

I cannot know how you think.

Why would someone come to a forum and engage in dialogue if they actually believed that words were not capable of showing the way in some respects?

I do realize though that there can be a distinction between what one thinks and how one thinks. But words help there too.

Let me see if I can clear things up for you a bit.

First, on the term I am, which says that I am the only god who is worthy of me.
If you cannot get what I put and apply that term to yourself, then you are likely idol worshiping something. Note how Jesus says that I am just one of many so my ego is not overinflated.
The last on reality and matter might help answer your questions on reality and our evolving perfection.

=========
Modern Gnostic Christians name our god "I am", and yes, we do mean ourselves.

You are your controller. I am mine. You represent and present whatever mind picture you have of your God or ideal human, and so do I.

The name "I Am" you might see as meaning something like, --- I think I have grown up thanks to having forced my apotheosis through Gnosis and meditation.

In Gnostic Christianity, we follow the Christian tradition that Christians have forgotten that they are to do. That is, become brethren to Jesus.

That is why some say that the only good Christian is a Gnostic Christian.

Here is the real way to salvation that Jesus taught.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Allan Watts explain those quotes in detail.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbes ... r_embedded

Joseph Campbell shows the same esoteric ecumenist idea in this link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGx4IlppSgU

The bible just plainly says to put away the things of children. The supernatural and literal reading of myths.

===========

Let me speak to the lie of our hating matter.

I wrote this to refute the false notion that Gnostic Christians do not like matter and reality that the inquisitors propagated to justify their many murders of my religions originators. It shows that Christians should actually hate matter and not Gnostic Christians.

The Christian reality.
1 John 2:15Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

Gen 3; 17 Thou shalt not eat of it; cursed is the ground for thy sake; in toil shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life.
-----------

The Gnostic Christian reality.
Gnostic Christian Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all.
[And after they have reigned they will rest.]"

"If those who attract you say, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you.

If they say to you, 'It is under the earth,' then the fish of the sea will precede you.

Rather, the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you.

[Those who] become acquainted with [themselves] will find it; [and when you] become acquainted with yourselves, [you will understand that] it is you who are the sons of the living Father.

But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

As you can see from that quote, if we see God's kingdom all around us and inside of us, we cannot think that the world is anything but evolving perfection. Most just don't see it and live in poverty. Let me try to make you see the world the way I do.

Here is a mind exercise. Tell me what you see when you look around. The best that can possibly be, given our past history, or an ugly and imperfect world?

Candide.
"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.”

That means that we live in the best of all possible worlds, because it is the only possible world, given all the conditions at hand and the history that got us here. That is an irrefutable statement given entropy and the anthropic principle.

Regards
DL

[Artimas]

The supernatural, by it's description, cannot be perceived.

If it could and was real, then there could be another layer of supernatural behind it that it would not perceive any better than we perceive ours.

Think matrix and fractal math.

God over god is as old as Gnostic Christianity and Hollywood has used that theme many times.

Regards
DL

There is nothing that cannot be perceived, even if only analogically, by our minds.

Let me know when you can name such an concept.

Regards
DL

That's the point I made. You can't name it.. Because it hasn't been perceived.. So if supernatural is what cannot be perceived then we cannot speak of it truly because we have no language to portray it as an image because there is no perception of it to describe.. Pretty simple.

And the answer to your question of there being nothing that cannot be perceived, death isn't perceived, in fact it's the end of an individual perception.

[Gloominary]

Belief isn't strictly utilitarian, nothing man thinks, says or does is strictly.
We believe things for all sorts of reasons, to make us happy or sad, to fit in or stand out, to motivate or demotivate ourselves, to orient or disorient, to construct or destruct an identity, just as we say consume things for all sorts of reasons besides sustenance.
It's not just supernaturality, we believe all sorts of wacky things, and there's nothing necessarily wrong with that.
Faith in academia and science is also a wacky thing, but some people will go on having it, because it's comforting and, for them, compelling.

Science can be wrong, even when the method is well applied.
Science is a good method for figuring things out, but not the only good one, there's the Socratic, Cartesian and Zetetic methods for example, there's epistemological anarchism, there's instinct, intuition and experimenting, observing, reasoning and researching in unsystematic ways for example.
Academia can be corrupted just like business, media, politics or any institution, by their egos, by capital.

Like it or lump it, science is more than method, it comes with some (convenient) metaphysical assumptions and baggage, like patentable medicines are superior to unpatentable ones, or accidentalism, artificialism, determinism, reductionism and paranormalism as opposed to conspiracism, organicism, indeterminism, holism and normalism.
Science was created by Europeans with their particular and peculiar European neurocognition and psychology, their linguistic presuppositions and interacting with their corporations, governments and ideologues, not in a vacuum.

All these things have conditioned what science has become.
It's not so easy to separate the method from all these things out in the real world, in the real world they rarely are.
Academia and science need to be supplemented with nonacademia, altacademia and nonscience, or vice versa.

In any case, you can't prohibit supernaturality any more than you can prohibit drugs, herbalism, refined foods and steroids, and you shouldn't, some people need or want it.
People will always fuck around with their neurochemistry, alter their states, and belief in the supernatural is one way of doing that, drugs are another, and then there's meditation, art, music, dance, trance...

Furthermore, supernaturalists and their family, friends and community may've had individual or collective supernatural experiences, and while they may not be able to prove they had those experiences to others in the hardest sense of the word proof, they may be able to prove it to themselves, and others mayn't be able to disprove it either.


Life is a massive uncontrolled experiment, so what makes you think you'll be able to fully, if at all replicate it in tiny controlled ones?
Society thinking on its feet and talking to one another is just as, if not more important than what academia does.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Faith in academia and science is also a wacky thing, but some people will go on having it, because it's comforting and, for them, compelling.

Science can be wrong, even when the method is well applied.
Science is a good method for figuring things out, but not the only good one, there's the Socratic, Cartesian and Zetetic methods for example, there's epistemological anarchism, there's instinct, intuition and experimenting, observing, reasoning and researching in unsystematic ways for example.
Academia can be corrupted just like business, media, politics or any institution, by their egos, by capital.

Like it or lump it, science is more than method, it comes with some (convenient) metaphysical assumptions and baggage, like patentable medicines are superior to unpatentable ones, or accidentalism, artificialism, determinism, reductionism and paranormalism as opposed to conspiracism, organicism, indeterminism, holism and normalism.
Science was created by Europeans with their particular and peculiar European neurocognition and psychology, their linguistic presuppositions and interacting with their corporations, governments and ideologues, not in a vacuum.

Yes, many times over to all this. The irony is what you are saying is practically taboo and yet everyone, even scientists, are eclectic in determining what they think is true and certainly about all sorts of things they act on in the world. That is make decisions with real world consequences. But that's is almost never admitted. It was as if they could navigate their lives restricting themselves to consensus science based on peer reviewed articles.

In any case, you can't prohibit supernaturality any more than you can prohibit drugs, herbalism, refined foods and steroids, and you shouldn't, some people need or want it.
People will always fuck around with their neurochemistry, alter their states, and belief in the supernatural is one way of doing that, drugs are another, and then there's meditation, art, music, dance, trance...

Furthermore, supernaturalists and their family, friends and community may've had individual or collective supernatural experiences, and while they may not be able to prove they had those experiences to others in the hardest sense of the word proof, they may be able to prove it to themselves, and others mayn't be able to disprove it either.

And in many disciplines: shamanism or meditative practices in Hinduism, as a couple of examples, experiences and stages can be predicted and increased with guidance from experts.

[Arcturus Descending]

Greatest I Am wrote:

Let me see if I can clear things up for you a bit.

First, on the term I am, which says that I am the only god who is worthy of me.

Well, that certainly did not clear anything up for me. You seem to have God speaking to Himself, glorifying Himself here.

The below is a hyperlink which more precisely and fully explains the term I AM than I could and perhaps it would hold more authority for you too...perhaps

https://chicagobible.org/why-did-god-ca ... that-i-am/

If you cannot get what I put and apply that term to yourself, then you are likely idol worshiping something

.
When I believed in God, I did not put myself on the same level as God. I called myself a creation/creature of God's, not one equal with God and certainly not divine.

Why would I choose to worship something which I found to be equal to myself?

I stand in awe of many things in creation. You might say that I worship them in a sense, but they are things which bring out something in me which I almost reverence. At least I am not worshipping the Golden Calf there.

Note how Jesus says that I am just one of many so my ego is not overinflated.

Can you please post for me here the biblical verse for that. I would have to read what comes before and after that in order to "see" what I think he meant by that.

Do Gnostic Christians believe that Christ was both human and divine -- I mean as the Second person of the Blessed Trinity or simply a prophet?

Modern Gnostic Christians name our god "I am", and yes, we do mean ourselves.

I do not understand how you could possibly believe that that is not over-inflating yourself.

I can easily say that I Am because I am - after all, I do exist, but I do not mean it as it was meant in the biblical sense and translation.
So, do you mean it as I do - that I exist - or do actually believe that you share in a God's divinity?

You are your controller. I am mine. You represent and present whatever mind picture you have of your God or ideal human, and so do I.

As an agnostic, the only mind picture I could possibly at some point in time have of God is that of a creator.

At one time, I did believe in a personal God and if I were to ever actually "see" God in the sense that I would know that one existed, it would not be of a personal God. At least this is my thinking but rather than be so absolutist about it, I will take that last bit back. How could we know now how we might think and feel in the future.

The name "I Am" you might see as meaning something like, --- I think I have grown up thanks to having forced my apotheosis through Gnosis and meditation.

You mentioned that before and I said that I would not have expressed myself in that way. If you are speaking of human evolution, sure but I would say that I am in the process of growing up...I am not there yet.

In Gnostic Christianity, we follow the Christian tradition that Christians have forgotten that they are to do. That is, become brethren to Jesus.

That is why some say that the only good Christian is a Gnostic Christian.

What does being a "brethen to Jesus" encompass for you and the others?

Anyway, your above quote seems to be a pretty self-serving statement to me. You would probably not be so bad if you did not think of Gnostic Christians as the only good Christians or the only good individuals.

I am sure that there are many Christians who do not label their selves as Gnostic Christians who also see their selves as followers of Christ, as his brethren, and who follow his teachings.

Here is the real way to salvation that Jesus taught.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

So what is this saying to you?

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

That is pretty self-explanatory. So, does this also hold true for those who are not Gnostic Christians or are GC the only ones who are capable of following this precept?

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Maybe you can explain what this means to me. I looked it up and all I got over and over again were the same words in different lines.
Paul could have actually been speaking there to the OT prophecy of Jesus coming down to Earth and becoming Man, et cetera but I do not. Where is Jayson when you need him. There was once here a man with the username of Jason I believe who was a biblical scholar.

Personally, I do not believe in predestination and I do not believe that I was always a twinkle in God's eye. I was not even a twinkle in my mother's eye.

Allan Watts explain those quotes in detail.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbes ... r_embedded

I noted that Watts also spoke in terms of a democracy in heaven which I do not think that you agree with since you like to separate the Christians from the Gnostic Christians.
I also think that the video might be better served if it did not have that sentimental gooey music in the background. That was getting on my nerves. If something is real, it does not need that kind of background music.
Some of what he says I can go along with and some I cannot.

The bible just plainly says to put away the things of children. The supernatural and literal reading of myths.

Allan Watts, in the video, toward the end pretty much said that the bible ought to be burned. If only certain parts of the bible could be burned, I would say "yea". But at the same time, there still is a lot of good and practical wisdom in it.

There is another way of looking at what Paul says. In other words, grow up. He may have also meant what you said. I wonder what he would have thought about the parting of the Red Sea.

The Christian reality.
1 John 2:15Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

I might take this to mean that he was speaking to people like priests, ministers, sisters/nuns. I do not necessarily think that John was speaking in terms of actually hating the world and what is in it.
I pretty much remember having things like this explained by the priests during the epistles and homilies.

The Gnostic Christian reality.
Gnostic Christian Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all.
[And after they have reigned they will rest.]"

So, what do you think and feel Christ was saying with the above words? I am curious about the "disturbed" word in there?
Disturbed can mean having had its normal pattern or function disrupted. or
suffering or resulting from emotional and mental problems.
I personally would opt for the first definition about the normal patterns and functions.
I can imagine both scientists and philosophers experiencing that above quote.

"If those who attract you say, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you.

If they say to you, 'It is under the earth,' then the fish of the sea will precede you.

Rather, the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you.

[Those who] become acquainted with [themselves] will find it; [and when you] become acquainted with yourselves, [you will understand that] it is you who are the sons of the living Father.

But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty." [/quote]

I do not understand why you have to compartmentalize biblical sayings into Christian or Gnostic Christian.

As you can see from that quote, if we see God's kingdom all around us and inside of us, we cannot think that the world is anything but evolving perfection. Most just don't see it and live in poverty. Let me try to make you see the world the way I do.

But I do not see it in that way and I did not see it in that way when I believed that God's kingdom was..............................................
I do not think that it is living in poverty to see a "real" world out there, the way that it actually is. But you do have the right to see it your way and I suppose that it is not such a bad way to see it, that is, if you actively help the world in some ways in its ongoing evolution.

Here is a mind exercise. Tell me what you see when you look around. The best that can possibly be, given our past history, or an ugly and imperfect world?

I do not think that I see either of those. The first seems to me to be an excuse ~ in other words, what choice do we have but to see things your way as things are as they are, (we cannot go back and change things) and as for the second, I do not see an ugly world but I do at times see extremely ugly people - man's inhumanity to man - It is also a beautiful magnificent world but it is an imperfect world.
The fact that someone believes in God and believes that God is in the world and in people does not change that.

This is a poem which I wrote quite awhile back. It will give you an idea of what I see and how I see when I look around.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=172245

Candide.
"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; f

Obviously this statement is true though things might have been otherwise than what they are if we had made other or better choices or had been there when it would have been a good thing. But then again, who is to say. Too many so-called random things get in the way. But I do not believe that we are pre-destined.

or as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.”

I suppose that I can go along with the first part here but as for the second part, I think that that is kind of looking at life through rose-colored glasses although I do realize that we need to live with hope.
But WHY must they necessarily be created for the best end? Do you think that God has it already all planned out? Would that make us puppets?

That means that we live in the best of all possible worlds, because it is the only possible world, given all the conditions at hand and the history that got us here. That is an irrefutable statement given entropy and the anthropic principle.

In other words, we are to accept our fate. We have no other choice. I wonder if we really take this as our philosophy, what part it might play in our sitting back and not doing much at all as far as a future goes. But I may be wrong here.

People who ignore evidence to believe in the supernatural are a disgrace to the human race.

Just to be sure, the "supernatural" here pertains to God?
Are you speaking of any evidence besides the Universe itself and its workings?
That may speak to the possibility of God but not necessarily to the actual reality of a God.
As for myself, I cannot be forced to take that leap from wondering and questioning and seeing possibility of ~~ to knowing or knowing definitively.

I suppose that I am just a disgrace to the human race. I can accept that.

[Greatest I am]

The supernatural, by it's description, cannot be perceived.

If it could and was real, then there could be another layer of supernatural behind it that it would not perceive any better than we perceive ours.

Think matrix and fractal math.

God over god is as old as Gnostic Christianity and Hollywood has used that theme many times.

Regards
DL

There is nothing that cannot be perceived, even if only analogically, by our minds.

Let me know when you can name such an concept.

Regards
DL

That's the point I made. You can't name it.. Because it hasn't been perceived.. So if supernatural is what cannot be perceived then we cannot speak of it truly because we have no language to portray it as an image because there is no perception of it to describe.. Pretty simple.

And the answer to your question of there being nothing that cannot be perceived, death isn't perceived, in fact it's the end of an individual perception.

So then it is perceived to it's end. That was the point.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Belief isn't strictly utilitarian, nothing man thinks, says or does is strictly.
We believe things for all sorts of reasons, to make us happy or sad, to fit in or stand out, to motivate or demotivate ourselves, to orient or disorient, to construct or destruct an identity, just as we say consume things for all sorts of reasons besides sustenance.
It's not just supernaturality, we believe all sorts of wacky things, and there's nothing necessarily wrong with that.
Faith in academia and science is also a wacky thing, but some people will go on having it, because it's comforting and, for them, compelling.

Science can be wrong, even when the method is well applied.
Science is a good method for figuring things out, but not the only good one, there's the Socratic, Cartesian and Zetetic methods for example, there's epistemological anarchism, there's instinct, intuition and experimenting, observing, reasoning and researching in unsystematic ways for example.
Academia can be corrupted just like business, media, politics or any institution, by their egos, by capital.

Like it or lump it, science is more than method, it comes with some (convenient) metaphysical assumptions and baggage, like patentable medicines are superior to unpatentable ones, or accidentalism, artificialism, determinism, reductionism and paranormalism as opposed to conspiracism, organicism, indeterminism, holism and normalism.
Science was created by Europeans with their particular and peculiar European neurocognition and psychology, their linguistic presuppositions and interacting with their corporations, governments and ideologues, not in a vacuum.

All these things have conditioned what science has become.
It's not so easy to separate the method from all these things out in the real world, in the real world they rarely are.
Academia and science need to be supplemented with nonacademia, altacademia and nonscience, or vice versa.

In any case, you can't prohibit supernaturality any more than you can prohibit drugs, herbalism, refined foods and steroids, and you shouldn't, some people need or want it.
People will always fuck around with their neurochemistry, alter their states, and belief in the supernatural is one way of doing that, drugs are another, and then there's meditation, art, music, dance, trance...

Furthermore, supernaturalists and their family, friends and community may've had individual or collective supernatural experiences, and while they may not be able to prove they had those experiences to others in the hardest sense of the word proof, they may be able to prove it to themselves, and others mayn't be able to disprove it either.


Life is a massive uncontrolled experiment, so what makes you think you'll be able to fully, if at all replicate it in tiny controlled ones?
Society thinking on its feet and talking to one another is just as, if not more important than what academia does.

So what a doctor would do for your is no more important than the witch doctor.

Ok.

I would not want to prohibit supernatural thinking. I want it recognized as the speculative nonsense that it is.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Greatest I Am wrote:

Let me see if I can clear things up for you a bit.

First, on the term I am, which says that I am the only god who is worthy of me.

Well, that certainly did not clear anything up for me. You seem to have God speaking to Himself, glorifying Himself here.

The below is a hyperlink which more precisely and fully explains the term I AM than I could and perhaps it would hold more authority for you too...perhaps

https://chicagobible.org/why-did-god-ca ... that-i-am/

If you cannot get what I put and apply that term to yourself, then you are likely idol worshiping something

.
When I believed in God, I did not put myself on the same level as God. I called myself a creation/creature of God's, not one equal with God and certainly not divine.

Why would I choose to worship something which I found to be equal to myself?

I stand in awe of many things in creation. You might say that I worship them in a sense, but they are things which bring out something in me which I almost reverence. At least I am not worshipping the Golden Calf there.

Note how Jesus says that I am just one of many so my ego is not overinflated.

Can you please post for me here the biblical verse for that. I would have to read what comes before and after that in order to "see" what I think he meant by that.

Do Gnostic Christians believe that Christ was both human and divine -- I mean as the Second person of the Blessed Trinity or simply a prophet?

Modern Gnostic Christians name our god "I am", and yes, we do mean ourselves.

I do not understand how you could possibly believe that that is not over-inflating yourself.

I can easily say that I Am because I am - after all, I do exist, but I do not mean it as it was meant in the biblical sense and translation.
So, do you mean it as I do - that I exist - or do actually believe that you share in a God's divinity?

You are your controller. I am mine. You represent and present whatever mind picture you have of your God or ideal human, and so do I.

As an agnostic, the only mind picture I could possibly at some point in time have of God is that of a creator.

At one time, I did believe in a personal God and if I were to ever actually "see" God in the sense that I would know that one existed, it would not be of a personal God. At least this is my thinking but rather than be so absolutist about it, I will take that last bit back. How could we know now how we might think and feel in the future.

The name "I Am" you might see as meaning something like, --- I think I have grown up thanks to having forced my apotheosis through Gnosis and meditation.

You mentioned that before and I said that I would not have expressed myself in that way. If you are speaking of human evolution, sure but I would say that I am in the process of growing up...I am not there yet.

In Gnostic Christianity, we follow the Christian tradition that Christians have forgotten that they are to do. That is, become brethren to Jesus.

That is why some say that the only good Christian is a Gnostic Christian.

What does being a "brethen to Jesus" encompass for you and the others?

Anyway, your above quote seems to be a pretty self-serving statement to me. You would probably not be so bad if you did not think of Gnostic Christians as the only good Christians or the only good individuals.

I am sure that there are many Christians who do not label their selves as Gnostic Christians who also see their selves as followers of Christ, as his brethren, and who follow his teachings.

Here is the real way to salvation that Jesus taught.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

So what is this saying to you?

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

That is pretty self-explanatory. So, does this also hold true for those who are not Gnostic Christians or are GC the only ones who are capable of following this precept?

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Maybe you can explain what this means to me. I looked it up and all I got over and over again were the same words in different lines.
Paul could have actually been speaking there to the OT prophecy of Jesus coming down to Earth and becoming Man, et cetera but I do not. Where is Jayson when you need him. There was once here a man with the username of Jason I believe who was a biblical scholar.

Personally, I do not believe in predestination and I do not believe that I was always a twinkle in God's eye. I was not even a twinkle in my mother's eye.

Allan Watts explain those quotes in detail.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbes ... r_embedded

I noted that Watts also spoke in terms of a democracy in heaven which I do not think that you agree with since you like to separate the Christians from the Gnostic Christians.
I also think that the video might be better served if it did not have that sentimental gooey music in the background. That was getting on my nerves. If something is real, it does not need that kind of background music.
Some of what he says I can go along with and some I cannot.

The bible just plainly says to put away the things of children. The supernatural and literal reading of myths.

Allan Watts, in the video, toward the end pretty much said that the bible ought to be burned. If only certain parts of the bible could be burned, I would say "yea". But at the same time, there still is a lot of good and practical wisdom in it.

There is another way of looking at what Paul says. In other words, grow up. He may have also meant what you said. I wonder what he would have thought about the parting of the Red Sea.

The Christian reality.
1 John 2:15Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

I might take this to mean that he was speaking to people like priests, ministers, sisters/nuns. I do not necessarily think that John was speaking in terms of actually hating the world and what is in it.
I pretty much remember having things like this explained by the priests during the epistles and homilies.

The Gnostic Christian reality.
Gnostic Christian Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all.
[And after they have reigned they will rest.]"

So, what do you think and feel Christ was saying with the above words? I am curious about the "disturbed" word in there?
Disturbed can mean having had its normal pattern or function disrupted. or
suffering or resulting from emotional and mental problems.
I personally would opt for the first definition about the normal patterns and functions.
I can imagine both scientists and philosophers experiencing that above quote.

"If those who attract you say, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you.

If they say to you, 'It is under the earth,' then the fish of the sea will precede you.

Rather, the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you.

[Those who] become acquainted with [themselves] will find it; [and when you] become acquainted with yourselves, [you will understand that] it is you who are the sons of the living Father.

But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

I do not understand why you have to compartmentalize biblical sayings into Christian or Gnostic Christian.

As you can see from that quote, if we see God's kingdom all around us and inside of us, we cannot think that the world is anything but evolving perfection. Most just don't see it and live in poverty. Let me try to make you see the world the way I do.

But I do not see it in that way and I did not see it in that way when I believed that God's kingdom was..............................................
I do not think that it is living in poverty to see a "real" world out there, the way that it actually is. But you do have the right to see it your way and I suppose that it is not such a bad way to see it, that is, if you actively help the world in some ways in its ongoing evolution.

Here is a mind exercise. Tell me what you see when you look around. The best that can possibly be, given our past history, or an ugly and imperfect world?

I do not think that I see either of those. The first seems to me to be an excuse ~ in other words, what choice do we have but to see things your way as things are as they are, (we cannot go back and change things) and as for the second, I do not see an ugly world but I do at times see extremely ugly people - man's inhumanity to man - It is also a beautiful magnificent world but it is an imperfect world.
The fact that someone believes in God and believes that God is in the world and in people does not change that.

This is a poem which I wrote quite awhile back. It will give you an idea of what I see and how I see when I look around.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=172245

Candide.
"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; f

Obviously this statement is true though things might have been otherwise than what they are if we had made other or better choices or had been there when it would have been a good thing. But then again, who is to say. Too many so-called random things get in the way. But I do not believe that we are pre-destined.

or as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.”

I suppose that I can go along with the first part here but as for the second part, I think that that is kind of looking at life through rose-colored glasses although I do realize that we need to live with hope.
But WHY must they necessarily be created for the best end? Do you think that God has it already all planned out? Would that make us puppets?

That means that we live in the best of all possible worlds, because it is the only possible world, given all the conditions at hand and the history that got us here. That is an irrefutable statement given entropy and the anthropic principle.

In other words, we are to accept our fate. We have no other choice. I wonder if we really take this as our philosophy, what part it might play in our sitting back and not doing much at all as far as a future goes. But I may be wrong here.

People who ignore evidence to believe in the supernatural are a disgrace to the human race.

Just to be sure, the "supernatural" here pertains to God?
Are you speaking of any evidence besides the Universe itself and its workings?
That may speak to the possibility of God but not necessarily to the actual reality of a God.
As for myself, I cannot be forced to take that leap from wondering and questioning and seeing possibility of ~~ to knowing or knowing definitively.

I suppose that I am just a disgrace to the human race. I can accept that. [/quote]

If you believe in the supernatural, it goes against your describing yourself as an agnostic.

As to the word god only being used to denote the supernatural, I guess you are not familiar with the many Emperors who named themselves god and their sons, sons of god.

In early days, god could not even be defined as anything other than a mystery. We should have stuck with that.

Stay in the real world. The supernatural one is for fools.

Regards
DL

[Karpel Tunnel]

So what a doctor would do for your is no more important than the witch doctor.

Is the doctor a psychiatrist? then sure.

Has the witch doctor worked with herbs in a tradition of using them through generations, well, it probably depends on the health problem.

Bullet wounds and much of the stuff that gets you into emergency rooms - if you have other options - Western doctors are the experts.

Chronic illnesses, systemic illnesses - like cancer - and often you are better off going to people poo pooed by the AMA.

[Gloominary]

Is the doctor a psychiatrist? then sure.

Has the witch doctor worked with herbs in a tradition of using them through generations, well, it probably depends on the health problem.

Bullet wounds and much of the stuff that gets you into emergency rooms - if you have other options - Western doctors are the experts.

Chronic illnesses, systemic illnesses - like cancer - and often you are better off going to people poo pooed by the AMA.

Good points.

[Jakob]

Belief is a great risk, and one that an intelligent being will prefer not to take.

"Supernatural" reeks of contradiction.

Unnatural is bad enough.

[Gloominary]

Some alt media, medicine and so on can prove they're more well researched, reasoned and affective than other alt and mainstream media, medicine and so forth to their consumers.

Today's alt media, medicine and so on often becomes tomorrow's mainstream, and todays mainstream tomorrow's alt.

It all depends on how much the public has confidence in it.

Sometimes the public's confidence in something is greater than big business, mainstream science and/or the state's confidence in it, and that's not necessarily a bad thing, unless you're an elitist and you think lowly of the public and highly of big business, mainstream science and/or the state, which're fallible, often collude and conspire to maximize their profits, power and prestige at the expense of the truth, health and safety.

[Arcturus Descending]

Greatest I Am,

I would suggest that if you are not going to respond to certain parts of the posts that someone sends you, that you simply highlight and press the delete button. It is not necessary to drag everything along with it into another post. The landscape remains more pristine that way.

If you believe in the supernatural, it goes against your describing yourself as an agnostic.

Yes, this is true as the statement goes but if you are referring to me as the "you" then I do not think that you have taken the time to read what I wrote. Either that, or you enjoy playing games. You may take your games elsewhere.

Labels I suppose are really not that important except to clarify some things but as I do not BELIEVE in the so-called supernatural realm, which includes ghosts, angels, devils, fairies, vampires, witches, warlocks, whoever, (did I leave anything out?) nor BELIEVE in God, I am more than comfortable in labeling myself as an agnostic. An agnostic holds back belief and judgment and insofar as the above list goes, the only reality is within one's imagination and creativity. It is far too easy within the fertile mind of the human being to have a seed planted, take root and voila these entities are born...but not into actual reality.

Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable.[1][2][3] Another definition provided is the view that "human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist."[2]

The English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley coined the word agnostic in 1869, and said "It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe." Earlier thinkers, however, had written works that promoted agnostic points of view, such as Sanjaya Belatthaputta, a 5th-century BCE Indian philosopher who expressed agnosticism about any afterlife;[4][5][6] and Protagoras, a 5th-century BCE Greek philosopher who expressed agnosticism about the existence of "the gods".[7][8][9][10]

Agnosticism is the doctrine or tenet of agnostics with regard to the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena or to knowledge of a First Cause or God,[11] and is not a religion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

As to the word god only being used to denote the supernatural, I guess you are not familiar with the many Emperors who named themselves god and their sons, sons of god.

Yes, I am familiar. Many human beings love to proclaim their selves as this or that. It is called narcissism perhaps in the case of some pathological narcissism.

At this point in time though we were discussing the matter of GOD, the God who people believe created the universe, the one which people believe is a personal loving entity, the one which people believe will always be available to protect and save them from the world, despite what evidence they see to the contrary, the one who will have to take the blame in their eyes because who else could they blame for nature's devastation.
A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing but so can no knowledge at all.

That is the part of the supernatural that I was basically referring to. The one seen as First Cause.

In early days, god could not even be defined as anything other than a mystery. We should have stuck with that.

I can actually agree with the above and THAT is why I am agnostic. Too much mystery, too many unsolved answers to questions. No matter what we think we know we still cannot fathom that question because we cannot know everything and possibly what we think we know is in actuality some different kind of reality.

Stay in the real world. The supernatural one is for fools.

The supernatural world is not the only one to watch out for and we all march to a different drummer, do we not?
Many of us live in our own fantasy (non supernatural) worlds which are not real. Those are also the ones we have to watch out for and take stock in.

[Gloominary]

Naturopathy, Ayurveda and traditional Chinese medicine have their own colleges, universities and in some countries the state recognizes their legitimacy and collaborates with them.

Allopathy isn't good and alt medicine bad, they're competitors, naturally they talk smack about each other like competitors do.

The same goes with mainstream and alt media or anything mainstream and alt, mainstream doesn't necessarily mean good.