Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Paganism, Taoism etc.

Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

#741  Postby Regina » Apr 23, 2014 3:09 pm

John Platko wrote:
Paul wrote:Funny how the Dalai Lama never travels much between incarnations and always conveniently seems to pop up again as a male, fairly promptly, in Tibet. Yet Anne Frank, a Dutch girl, dies in 1945 in Germany and (allegedly) pops up again in 1954 in Sweden.

Never did get an answer to this
Paul wrote:So please do tell us, what has Ian Stevenson established about reincarnation other than investigate claims about it.

Can he tell us exactly how does it works? How exactly does one become reincarnated?
What rules apply? Interspecies? Male to Female? Immediate reincarnation upon death, or into some sort of limbo first?


Although I've found for myself that Stevenson has documented several claims of reincarnation involving changes in gender, religion, nationality, ethnicity, political affiliation. Seems entirely random. Seems entirely fuckwitted.

edit: removed superfluous word


I have no interest in supporting the claims of Ian Stevenson as he strikes me to be a delusional idiot. However, his credentials as a legitimate scientist have been well established by his peers, despite what I and others may think of him.

By his peers in reincarnationism?
No, they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore,
They don't turn the other cheek the way they done before.

Kinky Friedman
Regina
 
Posts: 15713
Male

Djibouti (dj)
Print view this post

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

#742  Postby John Platko » Apr 23, 2014 3:09 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
John Platko wrote:That's just not how the word evidence works.


John, why don't you forward the long list of your refereed publications on the concept of evidence to someone who gives a flying fuck what your level of expertise on woo is?


Why don't you simply do a google search and learn what the word actually means. That's what a smart well educated person would do.
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

#743  Postby Regina » Apr 23, 2014 3:16 pm

John Platko wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
John Platko wrote:That's just not how the word evidence works.


John, why don't you forward the long list of your refereed publications on the concept of evidence to someone who gives a flying fuck what your level of expertise on woo is?


Why don't you simply do a google search and learn what the word actually means. That's what a smart well educated person would do.

You are sailing dangerously close to a FUA violation, John. The last resort of those floundering in a discussion with educated people, in my experience.
No, they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore,
They don't turn the other cheek the way they done before.

Kinky Friedman
Regina
 
Posts: 15713
Male

Djibouti (dj)
Print view this post

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

#744  Postby Paul » Apr 23, 2014 3:18 pm

John Platko wrote:I wouldn't call that the most cogent argument I ever heard.

It wasn't any less cogent than the vacuous wibble which I was replying to.

At some point, supporting claims that are false, starts having an effect on your own credibility. I would think the Nobel folks would care about that. I mean, what's the good of handing out prizes for special achievements if everyone thinks you're bonkers.

What you would think is neither here nor there, in fact based on your posting history it's worthless.
Bertrand Russell won the Nobel Prize for Literature, I suppose that means the committee endorsed his views on the existence of gods then?

You know, they could have just given him the award for what they believed he actually did, give plenty of background information about where he was born, and leadership positions held, etc. etc. and confine themselves to talking about things in his current lifetime. They didn't have to include the "r' word- but they did.

and they didn't make any categorical statement as to the truth of such claims, you're just interpreting it that way and I can only think you are doing that for one of two reasons.
"Peter, I can see your house from here!"
User avatar
Paul
 
Posts: 4550
Age: 66
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

#745  Postby Scot Dutchy » Apr 23, 2014 3:20 pm

Regina wrote:
John Platko wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
John Platko wrote:That's just not how the word evidence works.


John, why don't you forward the long list of your refereed publications on the concept of evidence to someone who gives a flying fuck what your level of expertise on woo is?


Why don't you simply do a google search and learn what the word actually means. That's what a smart well educated person would do.

You are sailing dangerously close to a FUA violation, John. The last resort of those floundering in a discussion with educated people, in my experience.


John always flounders. Like a kid in a mud bath saying look I can swim.
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 43119
Age: 75
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

#746  Postby John Platko » Apr 23, 2014 3:21 pm

Regina wrote:@ John Platko: Well, according to your definition of "evidence", which is clearly unscientific, it has been so weak in support of the supernatural that it can be dismissed without a second glance. In other words, you're trying to dress up the ramblings and the delusions of the terminally fuckwitted with a fancy-sounding little word where there is nothing but crap.
Funnily enough, your very own church has arrived at the same conclusion. So while they are creating "saints" like it's going out of fashion, they realize it's increasingly difficult to produce the required "miracles", ie supernatural interventions. Hence John the Twentysomethingth will be beatified without having to go through the drudgery of personally performing magic. And he won't be the last since creating "saints" is politics, and pretty disgusting politics when you look at some of the nasty former wastes of space you are invited to pray to.


Could you please rephrase that incoherent rambling into something resembling a sensible statement relevant to something near the subject we are discussing. And please refrain from including any personal biases that seem most determined to leak out onto my screen and into my view where I must mop them up and dispose of them sanitarily so they will loose their ability to infect their prejudices on others.
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

#747  Postby Agrippina » Apr 23, 2014 3:21 pm

Just to clear something up. I'm learning more about the Catholic Church's religion from this thread, so that's helpful.

I'm told that Mary was apparently born without "original sin" and that that is the source of the "Immaculate Conception." However, my claim that she was pregnant (of course if there's even a grain a truth in the story of the birth of Jesus, and if he actually existed) not because God magicked an egg to self-germinate inside her, but because she'd done the dirty and was trying to cover it up by claiming "Goddidit," as is claimed by the whole "Blessed Virgin" nonsense.

he Mother, of God, Mother of Jesus, wife of St. Joseph, and the greatest of all Christian saints. The Virgin Mother was, after her Son, exalted by divine grace above all angels and men. Mary is venerated with a special cult, called by St. Thomas Aquinas, hyperdulia, as the highest of God's creatures. The principal events of her life are celebrated as liturgical feasts of the universal Church. Mary's life and role in the history of salvation is prefigured in the Old Testament, while the events of her life are recorded in the New Testament. Traditionally, she was declared the daughter of Sts. Joachim and Anne. Born in Jerusalem, Mary was presented in the Temple and took a vow of virginity. Living in Nazareth, Mary was visited by the archangel Gabriel, who announced to her that she would become the Mother of Jesus, by the Holy Spirit.


On the Immaculate Conception idea, for the benefit of other people reading this thread:

It’s important to understand what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is and what it is not. Some people think the term refers to Christ’s conception in Mary’s womb without the intervention of a human father; but that is the Virgin Birth. Others think the Immaculate Conception means Mary was conceived "by the power of the Holy Spirit," in the way Jesus was, but that, too, is incorrect. The Immaculate Conception means that Mary, whose conception was brought about the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain—that’s what "immaculate" means: without stain. The essence of original sin consists in the deprivation of sanctifying grace, and its stain is a corrupt nature. Mary was preserved from these defects by God’s grace; from the first instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace and was free from the corrupt nature original sin brings.

When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28). The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The traditional translation, "full of grace," is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of "highly favored daughter." Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for "daughter"). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace." Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.


Just more supernatural nonsense, claiming that she, herself, was conceived without her parents doing "naughty stuff" which those of us who don't believe in magical sky fairies know is completely impossible.

Just coming back to the conception of Jesus. Again, theists will just wave this way with their "with God all things are possible" nonsense, but because it's the father who decides the gender of the child, had Jesus been conceived without the input of a human man, and merely generated by his mother, he would've been a girl. Hmmmmm, which makes me think, all that compassion, turning away from the violence of the Old Testament, maybe he was a woman. But that's another whole argument for another thread. :grin:
A mind without instruction can no more bear fruit than can a field, however fertile, without cultivation. - Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BCE - 43 BCE)
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 36924
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

#748  Postby Scot Dutchy » Apr 23, 2014 3:22 pm

John Platko wrote:
Regina wrote:@ John Platko: Well, according to your definition of "evidence", which is clearly unscientific, it has been so weak in support of the supernatural that it can be dismissed without a second glance. In other words, you're trying to dress up the ramblings and the delusions of the terminally fuckwitted with a fancy-sounding little word where there is nothing but crap.
Funnily enough, your very own church has arrived at the same conclusion. So while they are creating "saints" like it's going out of fashion, they realize it's increasingly difficult to produce the required "miracles", ie supernatural interventions. Hence John the Twentysomethingth will be beatified without having to go through the drudgery of personally performing magic. And he won't be the last since creating "saints" is politics, and pretty disgusting politics when you look at some of the nasty former wastes of space you are invited to pray to.


Could you please rephrase that incoherent rambling into something resembling a sensible statement relevant to something near the subject we are discussing. And please refrain from including any personal biases that seem most determined to leak out onto my screen and into my view where I must mop them up and dispose of them sanitarily so they will loose their ability to infect their prejudices on others.


John just fuck off.
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 43119
Age: 75
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

#749  Postby Cito di Pense » Apr 23, 2014 3:25 pm

John Platko wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
John Platko wrote:That's just not how the word evidence works.


John, why don't you forward the long list of your refereed publications on the concept of evidence to someone who gives a flying fuck what your level of expertise on woo is?


Why don't you simply do a google search and learn what the word actually means. That's what a smart well educated person would do.


The beliefs of believers in reincarnation, the supernatural, god, and all sorts of other woo are maintained by their beliefs in these things. They believe because they want to. I don't believe them, because belief that you have evidence is not evidence, and belief that you have presented evidence does not suffice to present evidence, however many times you offer it supposedly in support of your belief. Hence belief, and not evidence.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 30790
Age: 24
Male

Country: Nutbush City Limits
Ukraine (ua)
Print view this post

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

#750  Postby Agrippina » Apr 23, 2014 3:26 pm

John Platko wrote:
Regina wrote:@ John Platko: Well, according to your definition of "evidence", which is clearly unscientific, it has been so weak in support of the supernatural that it can be dismissed without a second glance. In other words, you're trying to dress up the ramblings and the delusions of the terminally fuckwitted with a fancy-sounding little word where there is nothing but crap.
Funnily enough, your very own church has arrived at the same conclusion. So while they are creating "saints" like it's going out of fashion, they realize it's increasingly difficult to produce the required "miracles", ie supernatural interventions. Hence John the Twentysomethingth will be beatified without having to go through the drudgery of personally performing magic. And he won't be the last since creating "saints" is politics, and pretty disgusting politics when you look at some of the nasty former wastes of space you are invited to pray to.


Could you please rephrase that incoherent rambling into something resembling a sensible statement relevant to something near the subject we are discussing. And please refrain from including any personal biases that seem most determined to leak out onto my screen and into my view where I must mop them up and dispose of them sanitarily so they will loose their ability to infect their prejudices on others.


If you're going to be giving people advice on how to assemble their sentences, and also how to look up words in dictionaries, maybe you should look to your own errors. The word you're looking for is "lose" (misplace) not "loose" (untied).
A mind without instruction can no more bear fruit than can a field, however fertile, without cultivation. - Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BCE - 43 BCE)
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 36924
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

#751  Postby Paul » Apr 23, 2014 3:29 pm

John Platko wrote:
Thorham wrote:
MrFungus420 wrote:That has nothing to do with the supernatural which has NO evidence.

Has it occurred to you that if these things exist, that there's no evidence because no legitimate scientist is looking for any? Understandable, because who wants to stain their reputation with this kind of thing. Also, who is going to look for anything if they have no reason to go looking for it in the first place? An example is sub atomic particles. A thousand years ago there was absolutely no reason to go look for those things, because there was no reason to think that they existed. And even if we did look for them back then, we wouldn't be able to find anything anyway.

Again, I'm not saying these things exist (I don't know), and I'm not defending them.


This guy seems to be a legitimate scientist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson


John Platko wrote:I have no interest in supporting the claims of Ian Stevenson as he strikes me to be a delusional idiot. However, his credentials as a legitimate scientist have been well established by his peers, despite what I and others may think of him.


So in the context of the first quote you were just being pedantic?
"Ian Stevenson may be a 'legitimate scientist' but his claims are those of 'a delusional idiot'."
i.e. his work on reincarnation does nothing to establish that it actually occurs.
Not much point in you mentioning him then was there?
"Peter, I can see your house from here!"
User avatar
Paul
 
Posts: 4550
Age: 66
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

#752  Postby ElDiablo » Apr 23, 2014 3:32 pm

Paul wrote:
John Platko wrote:
Thorham wrote:
MrFungus420 wrote:That has nothing to do with the supernatural which has NO evidence.

Has it occurred to you that if these things exist, that there's no evidence because no legitimate scientist is looking for any? Understandable, because who wants to stain their reputation with this kind of thing. Also, who is going to look for anything if they have no reason to go looking for it in the first place? An example is sub atomic particles. A thousand years ago there was absolutely no reason to go look for those things, because there was no reason to think that they existed. And even if we did look for them back then, we wouldn't be able to find anything anyway.

Again, I'm not saying these things exist (I don't know), and I'm not defending them.


This guy seems to be a legitimate scientist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson


John Platko wrote:I have no interest in supporting the claims of Ian Stevenson as he strikes me to be a delusional idiot. However, his credentials as a legitimate scientist have been well established by his peers, despite what I and others may think of him.


So in the context of the first quote you were just being pedantic?
"Ian Stevenson may be a 'legitimate scientist' but his claims are those of 'a delusional idiot'."
i.e. his work on reincarnation does nothing to establish that it actually occurs.
Not much point in you mentioning him then was there?


John is backpedaling as fast as he can but not fast enough to get rid of the evidence.
God is silly putty.
User avatar
ElDiablo
 
Posts: 3128

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

#753  Postby John Platko » Apr 23, 2014 3:33 pm

Paul wrote:
John Platko wrote:From Wikipedia:

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak.


This is what the word actually means. You may not like it, but to say this is not the meaning of the word is delusional. And I've been pretty careful not to conflate my use of "evidence" with "scientific evidence".


How about we talk about 'credible evidence' then? When people say that "there is no evidence for X", the word 'credible' is implied, i.e. they mean "there is no credible evidence for X"


One persons credible is another persons gullible. What is credible is a matter of opinion. That's why juries have to weigh evidence, that's why you need a bunch of people on the jury.



What you term 'religious evidence' or evidence for the supernatural is rarely, if ever, credible and usually only accepted by the credulous (aka naïve, gullible, overtrusting, uncritical, fuckwitted).


I think the world would be a very different place if what you say here was true. But I'm sure you''ll find if you do a bit of checking that some of the best critically thinking people that ever lived. People who invented the very methods of science, in fact. People whose keen mind penetrated impressive mathematical truths. People who carefully studied and teased apart the components of light. In other words, fucking amazingly brilliant people by any standards the world has ever known have accepted some of the evidence as, if nothing else, worthy of consideration.

So the truth of, "usually only accepted" can not be established with enough precision to be meaningful- I think. But I haven't accumulated the scientific evidence to support my opinion. Have you?
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

#754  Postby John Platko » Apr 23, 2014 3:35 pm

Regina wrote:
John Platko wrote:
That's just opinion based on personal bias. I'm sorry but I'm not really interested in that.

Yup. The standards are so high that they can't find miracles any more. :rofl:


Perhaps God is on sabbatical.
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

#755  Postby Regina » Apr 23, 2014 3:36 pm

John Platko wrote:
Regina wrote:@ John Platko: Well, according to your definition of "evidence", which is clearly unscientific, it has been so weak in support of the supernatural that it can be dismissed without a second glance. In other words, you're trying to dress up the ramblings and the delusions of the terminally fuckwitted with a fancy-sounding little word where there is nothing but crap.
Funnily enough, your very own church has arrived at the same conclusion. So while they are creating "saints" like it's going out of fashion, they realize it's increasingly difficult to produce the required "miracles", ie supernatural interventions. Hence John the Twentysomethingth will be beatified without having to go through the drudgery of personally performing magic. And he won't be the last since creating "saints" is politics, and pretty disgusting politics when you look at some of the nasty former wastes of space you are invited to pray to.


Could you please rephrase that incoherent rambling into something resembling a sensible statement relevant to something near the subject we are discussing. And please refrain from including any personal biases that seem most determined to leak out onto my screen and into my view where I must mop them up and dispose of them sanitarily so they will loose their ability to infect their prejudices on others.

:lol: Loose?
You assign my words far too much effect. Perhaps I should feel honoured, though.

You are not up-to-date with your church's politics regarding the supernatural, are you?
Last edited by Regina on Apr 23, 2014 3:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
No, they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore,
They don't turn the other cheek the way they done before.

Kinky Friedman
Regina
 
Posts: 15713
Male

Djibouti (dj)
Print view this post

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

#756  Postby John Platko » Apr 23, 2014 3:37 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote:FFS JOHN SHUT UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are talking a fucking load of the biggest crap.

JOHN once and for fucking all:

WHERE IS YOUR FUCKING EVIDENCE.


I wouldn't exactly call it "my" evidence.
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

#757  Postby Cito di Pense » Apr 23, 2014 3:39 pm

Regina wrote:
John Platko wrote:
Regina wrote:@ John Platko: Well, according to your definition of "evidence", which is clearly unscientific, it has been so weak in support of the supernatural that it can be dismissed without a second glance. In other words, you're trying to dress up the ramblings and the delusions of the terminally fuckwitted with a fancy-sounding little word where there is nothing but crap.
Funnily enough, your very own church has arrived at the same conclusion. So while they are creating "saints" like it's going out of fashion, they realize it's increasingly difficult to produce the required "miracles", ie supernatural interventions. Hence John the Twentysomethingth will be beatified without having to go through the drudgery of personally performing magic. And he won't be the last since creating "saints" is politics, and pretty disgusting politics when you look at some of the nasty former wastes of space you are invited to pray to.


Could you please rephrase that incoherent rambling into something resembling a sensible statement relevant to something near the subject we are discussing. And please refrain from including any personal biases that seem most determined to leak out onto my screen and into my view where I must mop them up and dispose of them sanitarily so they will loose their ability to infect their prejudices on others.

:lol: Loose?
You assign my words far too much effect. Perhaps I should feel honoured, though.

You are not up-to-date with your church's politics on the supernatural, are you?


John's fact-finding efforts are on sabbatical.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 30790
Age: 24
Male

Country: Nutbush City Limits
Ukraine (ua)
Print view this post

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

#758  Postby Paul » Apr 23, 2014 3:44 pm

John Platko wrote:
Paul wrote:What you term 'religious evidence' or evidence for the supernatural is rarely, if ever, credible and usually only accepted by the credulous (aka naïve, gullible, overtrusting, uncritical, fuckwitted).


I think the world would be a very different place if what you say here was true. But I'm sure you''ll find if you do a bit of checking that some of the best critically thinking people that ever lived. People who invented the very methods of science, in fact. People whose keen mind penetrated impressive mathematical truths. People who carefully studied and teased apart the components of light. In other words, fucking amazingly brilliant people by any standards the world has ever known have accepted some of the evidence as, if nothing else, worthy of consideration.

You're talking about Newton here are you?
Yes, the world would be a different place if not for his work on the stuff that was evidenced, testable and actually worked. As for his work on alchemy and other woo ...

So the truth of, "usually only accepted" can not be established with enough precision to be meaningful- I think. But I haven't accumulated the scientific evidence to support my opinion. Have you?


but I've collected enough evidence to support my opinion of the worth of your posts.
"Peter, I can see your house from here!"
User avatar
Paul
 
Posts: 4550
Age: 66
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

#759  Postby John Platko » Apr 23, 2014 3:45 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
John Platko wrote:Obviously you know very little about schizophrenia.


The only people who REALLY know about schizophrenia do so from first hand experience of it. Me? I know nossink!


I mostly agree with that but I imagine anyone who had a psychotic experience could relate to what schizophrenia might be like. In fact if you had any discussion you could get a good idea of what it's like, I think.

For example. If you insists a word has such and such a meaning despite obvious evidence to the contrary- you may know more about what it's like to be schizophrenic than you think you know. Of course, words have their meanings and there are precise requirements that must be met to be classified schizophrenic.
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

#760  Postby Nicko » Apr 23, 2014 3:55 pm

John Platko wrote:Exactly! I am stating a fact. Supernatural events don't yield to scientific experiment. That is the very definition of the word supernatural. Not my definition, the generally accepted definition of the word. To say otherwise is to be delusional.

From Merriam Webster"

unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc.


So if science explained something that some evidence (not scientific evidence) suggested was supernatural we can be certain that the something was not supernatural.


The sad fact is that you think this proves something.

Yes, this is the sense that "supernatural" is commonly used. It is also a flawed usage.

Some 22 pages ago, I invited you to read an article entitled, "Against the Supernatural as a Profound Idea" to find out - in detail - exactly why this usage of the word "supernatural" cannot be valid. You clearly did not do this and continued blithely on your way, unselfconsciously spouting bollocks of the most ignorant variety.

From the article:

Paul Almond wrote:Someone who claims that things exist that are not "scientifically understandable" should say exactly what they think the unreasonable limitation in the scientific method is and why it will always exclude some things that can be known to exist by other means.
Last edited by Nicko on Apr 23, 2014 4:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Democracy is asset insurance for the rich. Stop skimping on the payments."

-- Mark Blyth
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 8643
Age: 47
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Other Religions & Belief Systems

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 0 guests