Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Poll

Pick somepm.

Ghosts.
[ 0 ] (0%)
Monsters.
[ 0 ] (0%)
Practical magic.
[ 0 ] (0%)
Mythological creatures (unicorns etc.).
[ 0 ] (0%)
Deities.
[ 0 ] (0%)
Demons (Devil's included).
[ 0 ] (0%)
Spirits of The Dead (not the same as #1).
[ 0 ] (0%)
Reincarnation, karma, that sort...
[ 0 ] (0%)
Type of scientological stuff like astrobodies.
[ 0 ] (0%)
Universal Superintelligence, Manas, Mano-dhatu.
[ 0 ] (0%)
Something Must Be there!... :faint: ..
[ 0 ] (0%)
A bit of "superstitions" - "salt, cats, whatnot :insane:".
[ 0 ] (0%)
Hobbits, snurves, dwarves, elves? ???
[ 1 ] (20%)
Vegetables are alive. :yikes:
[ 1 ] (20%)
I believe I'm alive. :beer: :coffee: :hat: :cheers:
[ 3 ] (60%)

Total Members Voted: 3

Topic: Do you believe in "supernatural"? (Read 28609 times)

Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Well, the word "supernatural" itself leaves me to desire.  I'd use some' like "paranormal" or "quasinatural", because you know what? Define "Nature"! :right:FOR REAL!!:left:

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #1 –
i believe in  predictions , Hypotesis , n/or pseudoscience only if that's something makes a sense .

i believe in supernatural , if there is Evidence of it .

aka that's for real and usefull .

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #2 –
How do you test any given, observable phenomenon for 'supernaturality' again? :rolleyes:

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #3 –
I said - the term seems to me not very accurate. You - would you like to define "Nature" first?

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #4 –
According to materialism, all the listed  things and ideas are natural. Nerve synapses conjure stuff up and what else can it be than natural?

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #5 –
At last you touched "supernatural" - half-theLounge is 'supernatural', and this thread is its Prophet.
Ersi, you're not exactly right in the root of the things -- however, you've touched an aspect.  Which is: how does one know that something's real? (What's "real", anyway?)
Wanna talk? :)

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #6 –
Silly people! This photo from Alaska best describes the supernatural.

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #7 –
Quote from: Josh on

Ersi, you're not exactly right in the root of the things -- however, you've touched an aspect.  Which is: how does one know that something's real? (What's "real", anyway?)
Wanna talk? :)

I have talked about it at length in the religion/atheism threads. To me things (anything) doesn't merit discussion without a definition. Definitions set out the discusser's way of thinking, their logic. It amazes me how atheists can claim God is unreal "because there is no evidence" when they fail to define reality and evidence. Usually atheists claim the scientific and rational high ground, but when it comes to talk about God, all science and rationality go immediately out of window and they become worse than kindergarten children.

You have a list of stuff that in the poll implies your definition of the supernatural. That's a good start. However, the problem with the heading of the thread is that you want to talk about belief in the supernatural. To me it's not a matter of belief, but of rational verification. To begin verifying, first you need a definition to narrow down the problem, to see if there's a problem at all.

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #8 –
Quote from: ersi on
However, the problem with the heading of the thread is that you want to talk about belief in the supernatural.

Quote from: Josh on
Do you believe in "supernatural"?
Quote from: Josh on
Well, the word "supernatural" itself leaves me to desire.  I'd use some' like "paranormal" or "quasinatural"...


Quote from: ersi on
To me it's not a matter of belief, but of rational verification.
On what grounds?:D
"Rational" implies some frame of reference - which is..? :)

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #9 –
Quote from: Josh on

Quote from: ersi on
To me it's not a matter of belief, but of rational verification.
On what grounds?:D
"Rational" implies some frame of reference - which is..? :)

State the premises, definitions and hypotheses. For example, when seeking to verify goblins, define what qualifies as a goblin, how it relates to non-goblins, etc. As a result you will find out the nature and purpose of goblins, or maybe you will find out they don't exist. This is the rational way.

Whereas it's irrational to merely insist "Goblins (don't) exist" when not saying what a goblin is and what it means to exist.

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #11 –
Quote from: ersi on

It amazes me how atheists can claim God is unreal "because there is no evidence"

It seems to me quite the opposite: theists claim God is real "without any evidence whatsoever".
@Josh: Yes, I know this is off topic and belongs to another thread. :rolleyes:

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #13 –
I agree partially. Evidences are things you can present to anybody else - unlike feelings, perceptions.

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #15 –
Irrelevant.

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #17 –
I believe in both of you, at least to the extent of your existence.

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #21 –
Quote from: ersi on

Quote from: Josh on

Ersi, you're not exactly right in the root of the things -- however, you've touched an aspect.  Which is: how does one know that something's real? (What's "real", anyway?)
Wanna talk? :)

I have talked about it at length in the religion/atheism threads. To me things (anything) doesn't merit discussion without a definition. Definitions set out the discusser's way of thinking, their logic. It amazes me how atheists can claim God is unreal "because there is no evidence" when they fail to define reality and evidence. Usually atheists claim the scientific and rational high ground, but when it comes to talk about God, all science and rationality go immediately out of window and they become worse than kindergarten children.

You have a list of stuff that in the poll implies your definition of the supernatural. That's a good start. However, the problem with the heading of the thread is that you want to talk about belief in the supernatural. To me it's not a matter of belief, but of rational verification. To begin verifying, first you need a definition to narrow down the problem, to see if there's a problem at all.


One's perception can be flawed no matter what definition you settle on. As usual you've took to mild insults to skew perceptions. Hardly reasonable or methodical. The mark of a weak point when you have to cast stones rather than present evidence. But then you based everything on your perception and that it is predominantly true. You would call me a materialist, tho I've seen no part of your definition that defines me. You hold to your own perception and push those to influence others to gather conclusions. By essence that is paranormal. And why such things as goblins and ghosts are perceived and passed to other's as well. There's a distinct possibly disproving goblins undermines your position.

The definition is understood well enough. What is natural and everything else is open-ended in science. There's plenty of room to accept anything all it has to do is be proven real thru a series of qualifications. There's little surprise people experience ghosts in a haunted house. Their perception is expecting any stray feeling they don't usually experience to be a ghost. Just as you find obvious flaws in religious doctrine yet want to believe your stray feeling have meaning.

Perhaps you can point out, during pregnancy at what point does something non-material happen?

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #22 –
I like the discussion:up:
The way I understand the topic is generalising on all those Gross Posts Of Reality (which one actually is under question - i.e. should be [abbr=« »]quoted[/abbr] as being perceived and then understood by each and every particular observer).

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #23 –
Luck is a matter of subjective perception. It's a common perception for everyone. More common for some, less for others, so there's some debate. All this makes the concept of luck relevant, not irrelevant. Same with gods, goblins, supernatural, definitions, etc. It's all relevant. Barulheira simply doesn't like to sort things out rationally. It's too much work for him.

Quote from: ensbb3 on

Perhaps you can point out, during pregnancy at what point does something non-material happen?
There's lots of stuff happening before pregnancy that determines if pregnancy is to occur at all. Is the attraction or repulsion of the potential mating partners material or non-material?