A reality based on empirical evidence that does not require supernatural explanations for unexplained phenomena or provide for a psychic existence beyond death.
Demonstrate how those on this thread, with whom you disagree, are avoiding it...
By utilizing said supernatural explanations, i.e. Young Earth Creationism.
...and then describe who they are using supernatural explanations to avoid said "stark reality".
I have no idea what you intended to say...
You're talking like a homosexual activist or AGW proponent. Using ad hominem strawmen to attack one's ideological opponents...
Nice steaming pile of hypocrisy there, eh? Cheers yourself!
Why do you feel that the supernatural is invoked as an "explanation for unexplained phenomena" ? Most of morality and the Bible are not there "to explain things" but to give detailed instructions as to conduct -- societal, personal, and ritualized. Compare and contrast that to the Greek mythologies (with their myriad gods) where drunkenness and sex with temple prostitutes are acts of worship. That sounds much more "invented" to me than a list of "Thou shalt nots" and injunctions to cancel all debts every 50 years.
The main "unexplained phenomena" --at least, of the sort I think you have in mind -- I can think of in the Old Testament are Creation, the pains of childbirth, and rainbows. Again, ontrast that to Greek mythology. There is a great deal of *explicit, individualized* anthropomorphism in the Greek myths; and such myths are directly tied to explanations for everyday phenomena after the fact, rather than predictions of major irregularities *before* they occur.
And it is fascinating that you use the word stark. Why do you use that word, how does it add to the validity of your statements?
By utilizing said supernatural explanations, i.e. Young Earth Creationism.
Why does this get under your skin so much?
I have no idea what you intended to say...
Sorry 'bout that, late night typo. The correctly-typed-in quesion is :
...and then describe why they are using supernatural explanations to avoid said "stark reality".
Nice steaming pile of hypocrisy there, eh? Cheers yourself!
No pile of hypocrisy. You began by objecting to some religious people's attitudes, and rather than laying out what was wrong and engaging them, you engaged in ad hominem as though that were enough to demonstrate the fallacy in their position. (That is where the resemblance to AGW and homosexual activists comes in). I, on the other hand, did not attack you personally: I directly asked questions so that you would flesh out your arguments, rather than going right to your conclusions. And pointing out logical flaws in the argument of one's opponents is not hypocritical. But holding oneself out as the champion of empiricism and logic, and then using emotionally-laden words such as "stark" does tend to look hypocritical.
Incidentally, what is there which is "un-stark" about facing eternal fire in Hell? Or of the worldwide symbol of the religion being an instrument of torture, or of the religion's founder being unjustly executed ON said instrument of torture?
Cheers!
Not all reality is empirical, but the irrefutable stark reality of its existence remains.