Is There Room for Spirit Beings in Atheism?

1. 60

   Rhonda D Johnsonposted 11 years ago

   I was about to reply to rickylidea's forum "How Did You Become an Atheist?" when it dawned on me that I might not qualify as a bona fide atheist.  Some of you may remember from my previous hubs that I hesitate to apply a label to what I do and do not believe.   Still, there are some points in the atheistic paradigm with which I agree and that is why I started to reply to ricky.
   
   Atheists don't believe in the existence of what can be called a god.   While I cannot argue logically that there is definitely some al-powerful, overarching being, I still believe that there are spirits/ancestors/orishas. Since atheists are human, I must surmise that atheism is like any other human paradigm, consisting of conservatives and liberals, hardliners and progressives.  Therefore my question will bring a diversity of opinions.
   
   My reply to ricky's forum will most likely consist of my reasons for leaving the Christian church rather than taking upon myself a predefined label.   Is there anyone here who would object to such a reply as being off topic?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Eugene Hardyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      No really.
      
      There are many kinds of folk who call themselves atheists, and I believe not all of them agree on just what that is.
      
      For instance, in the States, when I hear online or out on the street the argument of atheism it is the non-belief in Jesus Christ as God, or anything dealing with the Bible.  But what stopped me from being an atheist and started me on my path of spiritual exploration is that this argument does exclude any other form of spirituality.  It seemed to me that the choice between Christ and atheism to be -limited.
      
      What of all the other spiritual traditions and faiths?
      
      What of the Truth?
      
      So it is a fair question.
      
      To be honest though, I think your forum would be more interesting.

      replyreport
   2. 80

      pennyofheavenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Maybe this is off topic??
      
      I think when we attach ourselves to labels the logical and reasoning mind then goes about collecting only the data that relates to that label. It restricts data from any other label because that is the logic doing it's job. When we do not attach ourselves to labels our logical mind does not have to fit data into any label and therefore does not restrict data coming in or going out.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Recently Awakenedposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Beautifully said. Too much emphasis is placed on labeling, categorizing, and what not. Then, the whole point is being missed. You can label yourself what ever you like and it really doesn't matter what other people say. If that is what you want, go for it. It is best to stop thinking about it so much and just be who you are!

         replyreport
         1. 80

            pennyofheavenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Just be says it all! Thanks

            replyreport
      2. 0

         Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I dislike labels, but other people seem to require them, so I eventually acquiesce and select one. However, i promise that I don't afterwards pre-select data based on that label. I am an insatiable consumer of data, and I take great care to consume it from many, many sources.

         replyreport
         1. 80

            pennyofheavenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I don't doubt that at all about you Chasuk.

            replyreport
   3. 70

      Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      No.

      replyreport
   4. 0

      rickyliceaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks for the mention Rhonda D. Johnson.
      My opinion is that atheists embrace a materialist outlook, thus excluding them  from the group of people that believe in spirits, etc.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         You are correct. Of course, not _all_ atheists embrace a materialist outlook, but most certainly do.

         replyreport
   5. 0

      TMDHemsley17posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Well, technically yes. Atheism is the belief that there is no God, but that doesn't mean said atheist doesn't believe in spirits or ghosts or other supernatural phenomenon. However, atheists such as myself tend to be rationalists and skeptics who believe in evidence and science, and so most people who identify with atheism would probably not believe in spirits as they have no evidence or rationale behind the idea.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Eugene Hardyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I think the term for a disbelief in God, but a belief in spiritualism would have other 'labels'.
         
         For instance, it is possible to be a gnostic that does not believe in an all powerful god as in Christianity and still have spiritualism, seeking spiritual answers for existence and other life issues.
         
         It depends on what you need spiritually or lack there of.
         
         But this isn't strictly atheism.

         replyreport
         1. 74

            jacharlessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Good call, Mr Hardy. Atheism would lean closer to Gnosticism, given the no-god concept, yet still leans toward Christianity, leaving room for spiritual. A metronome effect, perhaps? That is quite an extraordinary premise. It opens further ideas about the fundamentals of atheism.
            
            James.

            replyreport
   6. 85

      oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      To answer the main question of this thread, the answer would have to be no.

      replyreport
2. 84

   kathleenkatposted 11 years ago

   I think that's agnostic.

   replyreport
3. 0

   Chasukposted 11 years ago

   Most atheists wouldn't believe in "Spirit Beings" because most atheists -- myself included -- don't believe in the supernatural, at all.
   
   EDIT: Let me amplify the statement above.
   
   Atheism is the lack of belief in God or gods, nothing more, nothing less. However, most atheists also lack belief in the supernatural, at least when "supernatural" is defined as something outside of nature. Some atheists define the supernatural as phenomena _currently_ inexplicable, yet existing within nature. Those atheists could logically believe in spiritual beings.

   replyreport
4. 74

   jacharlessposted 11 years ago

   Of course there is. Atheism simply practices what most do -most meaning the believing- that is a rationality of something incomprehensible by textual validity; by terminology defined as supra-natural. Neither can explain it, and therefore dismiss it for some other doctrine idea/recompense. But both can attest to something powerful around them -call it whatever you prefer: space, matter, energy, love, consciousness, nothingness. Neither can be clear or emphatic in stating, because both lack what it is they define as the testable, provable, tangible parameters of experience. Therefore, spirit implies what is beyond the scope of reason, rational, logical experiential. It does not dismiss the probability, only the possibility and the effects of that possibility...
   
   James.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I'm not sure what you mean by "textual validity," as atheism has no canon texts.
      
      Naturally, atheists know that things more "powerful" than them exist. However, that isn't a tenet of atheism. Atheism addresses only the lack of belief in God or gods.
      
      Most atheists dismiss the probability of supernatural phenomena. This is because most atheists reject non-empirical claims. Still, dismissing the probability of something is not the same as dismissing its possibility, which is why most atheists _do_ concede the possibility of supernatural phenomena.

      replyreport
      1. 74

         jacharlessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Obviously. I disagree. The probability is more acceptable by the a/theist, than the possibility. Because possibility demands practical application or thorough scrutiny by all testable parameters. Neither theist nor atheist {identified equals} } will do so, because it dismisses/nullifies their traditional/accepted rationality pro/con, of the issue itself. Probability, on the other hand, is purely speculative, barely considerable. If anything, a quasi-experimental, not a literal.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I disagree. :-)
            
            "Possibility" refers to something being capable of occurring or existing. I acknowledge the possibility of a velveteen hippogriff orbiting Uranus.
            
            "Probability" refers to the likelihood of something occurring or existing.  I acknowledge the possibility of a velveteen hippogriff orbiting Uranus, but I don't consider it very probable.

            replyreport
            1. 74

               jacharlessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               velveteen wha-? Now that story is totally ruined for me. Was one of my fav's.
               
               Precisely! The likelihood of, versus the capability of. Therefore void of testability, a moot point. It is more plausible to consider the likelihood of a thing, than the capability of a thing. Capability demands validity by experiential -that is something neither a/theism want to do.
               
               James.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  I'll respond by explaining, briefly, my own atheism.
                  
                  Everything is a belief. There is no knowledge. To say that I "know" something is merely to say that I believe it with a high degree of certainty.
                  
                  I don't know that I am sitting in front of a computer in South Korea, entering text on a keyboard, communicating with you via the Internet. I don't know that my cute poodle puppy, Licorice, is sitting beside me. However, because I believe these things with a high degree of certainty, I refer to them -- in general discourse -- as things that I "know."
                  
                  I believe that I exist. If I "know" anything, I know this.
                  
                  I know that I like chocolate. I know that Christina Ricci is more sexually appealing to me than Angelina Jolie. I say that I "know" these things without hesitation, and without qualification. After all, they are matters of opinion, and matters of opinion never require empirical proof.
                  
                  On the other hand, not all "knowledge" concerns matters of opinion. Some concerns questions of fact. A question of fact has a "yes" or a "no answer."
                  
                  The existence of Yahweh is a question of fact. He either exists, or he doesn't, and my opinion is irrelevant. I lack belief in the existence of Yahweh -- or other gods -- because I have no reason to hypothesize him/them.
                  
                  All of the claims that I believe with a high degree of certainty are claims that 1) interest me enough to have investigated their probability,  and 2)  are supported by non-trivial evidence.
                  
                  Many claims I neither believe nor disbelieve, but merely acknowledge. This includes any claims regarding the origin of the universe.
                  
                  All of my beliefs, excepting the belief in my own existence, are provisional. I happily modify any of them.

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     Jeramiposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     all things contain some truth and  NOTHING is as it apears to be.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        All things? Really?
                        
                        Of the following statements, which contain truth?
                        
                        1. ALL pizza consists entirely of puréed Labrador livers.
                        2. Genghis Khan was married to Nancy Sinatra.
                        3. Jerami is the secret identity of Abraham Lincoln.

                        replyreport
                        1. 59

                           Jeramiposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           The word pizza is true and labrador livers do exist. And yet when you put them together it is not as it apears to be
                           
                              And now that you have spread the word ..  me being Abraham Lincoln is no longer a secret.
                           
                           Genghis Khan's boots were made for walking though he usually rode his horse

                           replyreport
                           1. 80

                              pennyofheavenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              Jerami is. contains truth
                              
                              Genghis Khan was married contains truth.
                              
                              Is that what you were meaning. Part maybe truth part may not be?

                              replyreport
                              1. 59

                                 Jeramiposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 Yep   something like that.   And there is someone out there that will swear to just about anything that we can make up in our heads. And if it isn't true today there is still tomorrow???

                                 replyreport
                           2. 0

                              Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              If you had written, "All statements can be parsed to extract 'true' sub-statements," then I might have agreed with you. :-)

                              replyreport
                              1. 59

                                 Jeramiposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 I wasn't expecting anyone to agree withe me anyhow.
                                 
                                   What was on my mind when I said it was that there is some truth is what every Atheist has said that I have read and some BS   and the same goes for theists.
                                 
                                   We are all wrong just a little bit (at least a little)   and everyone seems to be a little bit correct ... depending upon their place in life and happenstance which has befallen them.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 0

                                    Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                    Now that you have provided some context, I agree with you (which I know you weren't expecting).
                                    
                                    :-)

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 59

                                       Jeramiposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       nothing is as it apears to be....   but everything (even this) is subject to change.
                                       
                                         EDIT      it is almost 3 AM and If I don't want to sleep till noon  ???   I might aught ta get to bed pretty soon.
                                          Been a pleasure talking with ya .      Maybe some more tomorrow

                                       report
                                 2. 74

                                    jacharlessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                    Love that word.

                                    replyreport
                  2. 61

                     Disappearingheadposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     To summarise then, you can know your owns opinions with certainty, but facts are not absolutely knowable? Facts either are or are not but can only be up to 99.9% certainly known. The level of known is partly dependant on the level of research and partly subjective. Subjective in that the known may get only as far as 90% and the the observer fills up the remaining 10% in their heads.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        That's a pretty decent summary, yes.

                        replyreport
                  3. 60

                     recommend1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     I agree (provisionally)  except that even things that are 'facts' can be ultimately proved to be wrong, also opinions are certain but are subject to change, for instgance your sexual preference for Christina Ricci would be subject to modification if you met Angelina Jolie and she took a 'liking' to you !
                     
                     This brings up interesting issues - I have much the sam view as you and realise that actually we know very little about even what we think we know, most of what we believe as facts are not true or usually are not even facts, and we make our opinions on this bed of fallacy - oftenin accord with viewpoints that were imprinted on us before we were thinking for ourselves.
                     
                     This surely is the depths of the chasm that critical thinking flies above.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Yes.
                        
                        I do believe that greater levels of certainty are (theoretically) possible. Unfortunately, most people are not interested in -- and perhaps incapable of -- learning the critical thinking skills necessary to obtain it.
                        
                        I like the phrase, "the depths of the chasm that critical thinking flies above."
                        
                        Thanks. :-)

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           recommend1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           help youself to it - comes from a series of lectures I gave on critical thinking - to add drama and to make me sound more intelligent than I am

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              My wife and I currently live in South Korea, where we teach conversational English to Koreans. We have been here for three years, and hope to remain for several more.
                              
                              We are both 51. What are the upper age limits for working in China?

                              replyreport
                              1. 60

                                 recommend1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 Theoretically 60 but I am over that and going strong
                                 
                                 I have one teacher here who is over 70 but will continue until he cant remember which class he is in
                                 
                                 Supply and demand is in charge here, they have every rule and restriction in place until two weeks before semester start - and then take anyone remotely suitable or they will be short of teachers, I get to filter out the missionaries and perverts but find places for any normal human being with an ability to teach within our 'team'.
                                 
                                 Couples are prized because you only take one accomodation allowance

                                 replyreport
                           2. 80

                              pennyofheavenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              

                              replyreport
                  4. 74

                     jacharlessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Understood. And well put, I might add.
                     
                     My perspective:
                     
                     Nature {universe} is what happens when an unstoppable force meets and immovable object.
                     Sub-nature {unseen}, nature {where knowledge is static}, supra-nature {unseen}.
                     I would also call knowledge white noise.
                     
                     Everything within the static is given a name, title, image, limitation, ability, mobility -an identity.
                     Everything came from nothing {unknown, unseen, without name or title}.
                     
                     So, when the concepts arise regarding the sub or supra, knowledge goes from static to active/passive  toward the sub or supra. {Liken this to when Neo flexed in the film Matrix.} The sub-supra are the same, ever constant, which is why knowledge can be, can exist.
                     
                     Our greatest example of this is space itself. It is a force, unknown, unseen, yet exists as sub-supra, and maintains the static -the visible of itself. Wave and ray merge, projective and reflective collide and comes optic view, the absorptive, the visible.
                     
                     As you mentioned, YHWH is a name, a title given by knowledge, that flexes. The term g/God is the same, exemplified by the many titles, forms, images, names given to an astounding number of what knowledge defines as a power between the sub and supra. the largest collective is in the {now} Hindu tradition, having millions of said powers, now borrowed in part of whole by the Big Three. Would that make knowledge god, because it is giving place or reality to the things it titles? One wonders.
                     
                     In further philosophical studies of gnosticism and ancient North African culture {thanks be to an aunt who works for the Smithsonian}, regarding the origins, almost precisely what I stated meets theirs like a mirror -ideas 5700 'years' in the making. Ideas older than any known collective theology {science & sensation}. From now reading, more in depth, many of the unearthing of the DDS, am further convinced this is the case.
                     
                     So, when, to the general dislike of a/theist, alike, I say they are the same, this is the thinking behind it. Dis/belief are the flex. They too are what happens when that unstoppable force meets that immovable object, from either perspective --or both. And continues to the greatest and smallest -enth.
                     
                     Probability, like space, is that force unseen yet exists. Knowledge is what forms from it and possibility is the re/flex -that static, that white noise. If correct, meaning Creator, then this universe, is that static, is that white noise, is Knowledge.
                     
                     James.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        You've obviously given this a lot of thought, so I will give a respectful, if puzzled, reply.
                        
                        You write, "Nature {universe} is what happens when an unstoppable force meets and immovable object."
                        
                        What does that mean, exactly? The question, "What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?" is a famous paradox. Are you saying that nature is a paradox?
                        
                        You then divide nature up into the sub-natural and the supra-natural (the supernatural) without giving any reason for the division. You define knowledge as white noise/static. When concepts arise regarding the  sub-natural and the supra-natural (from where? by what means?), the knowledge isn't white noise/static anymore, but transforms to "active/passive toward the sub or supra."
                        
                        You then write, " {Liken this to when Neo flexed in the film Matrix.} The sub-supra are the same, ever constant, which is why knowledge can be, can exist."
                        
                        What does all of this mean? Respectfully, you may have all of this fixed in your mind, but the meaning is lost in translation to the written word.
                        
                        Please, don't take any offense. I'd like to understand what you mean, but, as currently expressed, I'm not finding your thoughts very explicable.

                        replyreport
                        1. 74

                           jacharlessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           True enough. Putting ink to thought is often the most difficult of tasks.
                           
                           Now, what is a paradox? A defined implosive-explosive; a probable-improbable; a proof-unprovable. It is simply the same force balancing itself. It simply means "itself" is unchanging/constant/immutable, even as it changes, mutates, interacts. In a word: Irresistible!
                           
                           No one knows how great or small that Irresistible is.
                           
                           Nature is not divided, but expressed in terms, because of how we speak. Hence, supra, static, sub. The supra-nature and sub-nature is the result of that Irresistible. Nature, Creation, Universe. A thing of singularity {constant} yet having many parts {motion; unstoppable}. A continuum that seems to breathe, flex.
                           
                           Knowledge is the between. How can that be? Well, what is knowledge: a revealing of what is not readily known, seen, visible, tangible. What caused Knowledge? The passion from within that Irresistible. Knowledge is static, because it cannot move outside of itself, or it would not be known. The Universe cannot be outside of itself, but can contains many things within. Knowledge is apart of that Irresistible and therefore is also irresistible to itself. We could again continue down this helix to the smallest -enth.  "The Greatness is measured only by the smallness of the things within it"
                           
                           What is called supra-natural or sub-natural are those components of the Irresistible. The unseen which is often labeled spirit. Theos, meaning the Great Sensational Equation, which is Reason, within our Knowledge, forms labels, titles, etc. This is why the mind is never satisfied, because it is Irresistible to itself. Ever constant information, always in motion {doing}. As the imagination in us creates whatever we perceive.
                           
                           I hope this makes better sense. I apologize for being lazy in my explanation -am exhausted today. lol.
                           James.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              OK, I now understand your explanation.
                              
                              Respectfully, that's not how I view things.
                              
                              Nature is the phenomena of the physical world as we experience it, everything that is, encompassing all existing space and matter. Nothing exists beyond it. The supernatural exists only conceptually, as a description of phenomena outside of our current scientific understanding. As for the "sub-natural," I have no reason to hypothesize it.
                              
                              Knowledge is a state, a  particular condition of mind acquired by experience. The mind is a consequence of the anatomy and physiology of the brain. Knowledge changes, as the consequence of continuing mental acquisition, but it isn't a process in itself.

                              replyreport
                              1. 80

                                 pennyofheavenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 It seems to me you are both saying the same things using different language?
                                 
                                 You
                                 
                                 ..all existing space and matter. Nothing exists beyond it
                                 
                                 Jacharless
                                 
                                 ...the Universe cannot be outside of itself, but can contains many things within.
                                 
                                 You
                                 
                                 Knowledge is a state, a  particular condition of mind acquired by experience.
                                 
                                 Jacharless
                                 
                                 Well, what is knowledge: a revealing of what is not readily known, seen, visible, tangible.
                                 
                                 (It is experience that reveals knowledge.) When I burn my hand for the first time knowledge is revealed by that experience...IE I know now not to stick my hand in a fire.
                                 
                                 Maybe I am wrong but that is the way it looks to me reading.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 74

                                    jacharlessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                    Nods {again}
                                    Experience is the revelation of {reveal, manifest; illuminate; form; give shape; create} what is understood { the Irresistible }.
                                    
                                    This, to me, is what most [thumpers] call that "...pressed down; shaken together, running over." Which is precisely the same as "...will not return void, but accomplish -prosper- what [it] was sent for."
                                    
                                    The Hebrew term: ehyeh asher ehyeh is defined as The Irresistible.
                                    Ehyeh is itself, the unstoppable force-immoveable constant.
                                    Asher is the experience of Ehyeh; Creation, The Crease, Universe.
                                    And no matter how it is read { left to right to left } is remains the same { I am I }.
                                    
                                    James

                                    replyreport
                                 2. 0

                                    Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                    Not even remotely. :-)
                                    
                                    Jacharless has spent a lot of time crafting his own metaphysics, couched in a vocabulary that reminds me a bit of Messianic Judaism.
                                    
                                    I wish him well in his endeavors, but it is unlikely that we will ever find a common ground.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 74

                                       jacharlessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       Spoken like a true believer! he-he.
                                       Perhaps, now, you might consider what I meant by "a/theist being the same; identical".
                                       
                                       And, once more, I must again disagree with you. We -The All of Humanity, The Many and the Few- share a commonality, a common ground. We are dissimilar in appearance, yet still bodies with the same parts, motions, emote; dissimilar in thought, yet share those same thoughts; dissimilar in action, want, need, desire, passion, resistance, reaction. We are irresistible to ourselves, each other and the Irresistible around us. What a wonderful thing, to be human!
                                       
                                       James.

                                       report
                                 3. 60

                                    Eugene Hardyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                    @pennyofheaven
                                    
                                    No, you are not wrong they are similar in thought but use different word s to express them.
                                    Interesting reading, Chasuk and jacharless.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 74

                                       jacharlessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       Thank you, Mr Hardy.

                                       report
5. 60

   Rhonda D Johnsonposted 11 years ago

   Yes, I see there are a number of differing opinions, all claiming to represent orthodox atheism.  Some may even argue that since atheism has no written canon, there can be no orthodoxy in atheism.  That argument could spark a whole nother hub/forum.
   
   I’m still not sure if I should reply to rickylicea’s forum.  I could with some sort of disclaimer.  Say certain experiences in my life, which I can neither duplicate  nor demonstrate, have led me to believe in the possible existence of indefinable, unknown, non physical beings who for some reason, unknown to me, have taken it upon themselves to make me suspect that they exist and are responsible for certain blessings in my life.
   
   Based on what you guys have said, I could shoehorn that into a forum for atheists.  As I read it, it sounds like something that might warrant a visit from the men in the long white coats.  Glad none of you knows where I live.

   replyreport
6. 61

   Druid Dudeposted 11 years ago

   This is why I have said that just because someone doesn't believe in God doesn't mean that they don't harbor other beliefs that would be considered illogical by others. Some think that I'm a mystic...I don't see it that way. Some think I'm a christian and refuse to see me any other way. I believe that I experienced something very real and very human, natural, not super-natural (I don't believe in the super-natural, just aspects of nature that we don't yet understand). I see God as being equal to Einstein's 'E'. From there it is pretty self explanitory, although many don't seem to get it. Stephen Hawking would be apoplectic.

   replyreport
   1. 57

      A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Then, we are merely seeking the mass for the 'm' in the equation, which is what exactly?

      replyreport
7. 61

   Druid Dudeposted 11 years ago

   For an atheist to deny even the spiritual aspect of man, would be supreme folly...but, they will tell you that the spiritual aspect is a delusion, and is illogical.

   replyreport
   1. 84

      kathleenkatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Or they would explain it differently than something supernatural.
      
      Also, what do Vulcans believe? They are very logical

      replyreport
   2. 57

      A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      It is folly to deny Santa Claus, too, for fear of receiving coal in ones chimney stocking.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Eugene Hardyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Unless you do not have a chimney.

         replyreport
      2. 84

         kathleenkatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Coal is a great source of energy. Much more useful than candy or toys. I like coal. It powers things like trains, real trains (rather than toy trains). Bring on the coal!

         replyreport