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

[Arcturus Descending]

Greatest I am

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

Why would you call it a "game"? Describe what you mean by game.
By "intelligent person", do you mean the puppeteers who try to own our souls and our wills and take our money, like some preachers and psychics?

So, when you speak in terms of "supernatural" does that also include the entity which supposedly is responsible for the creation of the world or just fairies and angels and demons, et cetera?

Nothing that I know of, other than personal renderings or hear say, has ever been produced or provide to show the existence of a supernatural realm or entities.

I can certainly agree with this.

The ancients did not seem to think the supernatural was a reality.

How far back are you going? The dinosaurs?

Gods and Goddesses

The ancient Greeks believed there were a great number of gods and goddesses. These gods had control over many different aspects of life on earth. In many ways they were very human. They could be kind or mean, angry or pleasant, cruel or loving. They fell in love with each other, argued with each other and even stole from each other.
....

http://www.ancientgreece.co.uk/gods/home_set.html

lol So, they were actually really good at doubting their beliefs then? That must have caused them a great deal of chagrin, no? But it is a great starting point for finding truth.

No entity, good or evil, have ever manifested itself in a provable way, even though some think god is Omni-present and that Satan was given the ability and power to deceive us all.

I agree. This is the way in which we humans explain away the world, turn away from finding "real" solutions to problems and refuse to see the real shadows and demons (non-supernatural) within ourselves. Anyway, I kind of think that superstitions are deep within our DNA, handed down from a forever ago.

I think that those who believe in supernatural entities are being taken advantage of by fraudulent preachers who recognize our propensity of over imagination, which we all have, as shown in the Princess Alice experiments. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWx_uVDh4Cw

I can see some benefits in imaginary thinking to validate or refute ideas but that is about it.

For instance, science, fiction, poetry? What are you speaking about here?

Is belief or faith in the supernatural a worthy idea for us or is it a tool used by lying preachers intent on fleecing sheeple?

I would say that it could be a worthy idea for us to ponder. We cannot actually prove one way or the other if there is Something Divine who or which permeates the universe. For some individuals, belief in a God can enrich one's life and help them to live a more moral and ethical one. For others, their belief and faith can allow them to feel less alone in the world and as part of a greater Whole. We are not all Nature Lovers. So, why would we want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and cause someone spiritual/emotional harm, as long as their belief can be a rational one based on what they can see of the world. It is possible though it is unprovable.

If there is no supernatural god, should we not seek a human leader or spiritual guide instead of idolizing imaginary supernatural gods that are demonstrably less moral than humans?

I think that we all need one another in a sense. For those with a great imagination and longing for a God, their belief in God may be enough but I am not so sure that it is or ought to be. But as I said, we all need another human, another's voice, hands, embrace, et cetera. We cannot hold a God in our arms or actually here this entity's voice as some believe they can. It is just a poor substitue for a human being or even for nature. Hugging a tree can give greater satisfaction. lol

I would be very careful about the human leader or spiritual guide which I chose.

How can a God, fictitious or real, be less moral than humans? We really do enjoy making this God into our own image and likeness or perhaps even better still, into the image and likeness of others. That is, for me, like calling a tree evil because it fell on you. That is a figment of one's imagination, simply a projection of one's own psyche.

Show me your God and I will show you who you are.





Regards
DL[/quote]

[Greatest I am]

Greatest I am

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

Why would you call it a "game"? Describe what you mean by game.
By "intelligent person", do you mean the puppeteers who try to own our souls and our wills and take our money, like some preachers and psychics?

So, when you speak in terms of "supernatural" does that also include the entity which supposedly is responsible for the creation of the world or just fairies and angels and demons, et cetera?

Nothing that I know of, other than personal renderings or hear say, has ever been produced or provide to show the existence of a supernatural realm or entities.

I can certainly agree with this.

The ancients did not seem to think the supernatural was a reality.

How far back are you going? The dinosaurs?

Gods and Goddesses

The ancient Greeks believed there were a great number of gods and goddesses. These gods had control over many different aspects of life on earth. In many ways they were very human. They could be kind or mean, angry or pleasant, cruel or loving. They fell in love with each other, argued with each other and even stole from each other.
....

http://www.ancientgreece.co.uk/gods/home_set.html

lol So, they were actually really good at doubting their beliefs then? That must have caused them a great deal of chagrin, no? But it is a great starting point for finding truth.

No entity, good or evil, have ever manifested itself in a provable way, even though some think god is Omni-present and that Satan was given the ability and power to deceive us all.

I agree. This is the way in which we humans explain away the world, turn away from finding "real" solutions to problems and refuse to see the real shadows and demons (non-supernatural) within ourselves. Anyway, I kind of think that superstitions are deep within our DNA, handed down from a forever ago.

I think that those who believe in supernatural entities are being taken advantage of by fraudulent preachers who recognize our propensity of over imagination, which we all have, as shown in the Princess Alice experiments. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWx_uVDh4Cw

I can see some benefits in imaginary thinking to validate or refute ideas but that is about it.

For instance, science, fiction, poetry? What are you speaking about here?

Is belief or faith in the supernatural a worthy idea for us or is it a tool used by lying preachers intent on fleecing sheeple?

I would say that it could be a worthy idea for us to ponder. We cannot actually prove one way or the other if there is Something Divine who or which permeates the universe. For some individuals, belief in a God can enrich one's life and help them to live a more moral and ethical one. For others, their belief and faith can allow them to feel less alone in the world and as part of a greater Whole. We are not all Nature Lovers. So, why would we want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and cause someone spiritual/emotional harm, as long as their belief can be a rational one based on what they can see of the world. It is possible though it is unprovable.

If there is no supernatural god, should we not seek a human leader or spiritual guide instead of idolizing imaginary supernatural gods that are demonstrably less moral than humans?

I think that we all need one another in a sense. For those with a great imagination and longing for a God, their belief in God may be enough but I am not so sure that it is or ought to be. But as I said, we all need another human, another's voice, hands, embrace, et cetera. We cannot hold a God in our arms or actually here this entity's voice as some believe they can. It is just a poor substitue for a human being or even for nature. Hugging a tree can give greater satisfaction. lol

I would be very careful about the human leader or spiritual guide which I chose.

How can a God, fictitious or real, be less moral than humans? We really do enjoy making this God into our own image and likeness or perhaps even better still, into the image and likeness of others. That is, for me, like calling a tree evil because it fell on you. That is a figment of one's imagination, simply a projection of one's own psyche.

Show me your God and I will show you who you are.





Regards
DL

[/quote]

We may not have an argument.

This link is as far back as I am looking.

https://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2

As to your last. You are bang on.

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

Regards
DL

[FreeSpirit1983]

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

Nothing that I know of, other than personal renderings or hear say, has ever been produced or provide to show the existence of a supernatural realm or entities. The ancients did not seem to think the supernatural was a reality. https://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2

No entity, good or evil, have ever manifested itself in a provable way, even though some think god is Omni-present and that Satan was given the ability and power to deceive us all.

I think that those who believe in supernatural entities are being taken advantage of by fraudulent preachers who recognize our propensity of over imagination, which we all have, as shown in the Princess Alice experiments. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWx_uVDh4Cw

I can see some benefits in imaginary thinking to validate or refute ideas but that is about it.

Is belief or faith in the supernatural a worthy idea for us or is it a tool used by lying preachers intent on fleecing sheeple?

If there is no supernatural god, should we not seek a human leader or spiritual guide instead of idolizing imaginary supernatural gods that are demonstrably less moral than humans?

Regards
DL

Yes, although not all believers are intelligent, of course.

Religious people live better lives than atheists do. That's proven by the social sciences.

Being religious means a better life in this world (happier, live longer, less depression, less suicide, more giving) and hopefully a much better life in the next.

Better is a subjective thing.

Sure the religious live a bit longer and happier lives, but to a thinker, as compared to a sheeple, cannot see being a sheeple as better than a thinker.

The small difference is not enough to make an atheist put his mind in intellectual and especially moral dissonance.

We value our minds and truth more than theists. By we I mean thinkers, not atheists. Not being an atheist, I cannot speak for them.

At present, atheists are beginning the trend of providing what were known as mystery schools. Some are calling them atheist churches. That trend will give them the longer and happier lives without them having to insult their intellect and morals.

They know how utterly stupid and brain killing idol worship of a genocidal son murdering god can be. They have seen what it does to Christians and Muslims.

They are not interested in growing atheism with inquisitions and jihads.
That is why countries with less religiosity are more peaceful and law abiding.

Regards
DL

Lol no.

As Americans abandon God, despair rises. Suicide rates up 33% since 1999.

More Americans die in a year from drug overdoses than died in the entire Vietnam war.

This is what happens when atheism spreads like the cancer it is.

[Arcturus Descending]

FS

As Americans abandon God, despair rises. Suicide rates up 33% since 1999.

More Americans die in a year from drug overdoses than died in the entire Vietnam war.

This is what happens when atheism spreads like the cancer it is.

I think that that would depend on the individual and circumstances/situations.

Some abandon God or let go of God because they have reached a certain maturity and autonomy. They have outgrown their need for the patriarchal figure.

If someone has other meaningful things going for them in his-her life and a strong raison de etre that does not have to happen.

Are you sure that those who died from a drug overdose actually abandoned God or rather felt that God had abandoned them along with those who were to love and support them?

You have no way of actually knowing if those rates are up because this one or that one abandoned God. I would suggest that you see it that way because your main focus in life is atheism.

No matter how much someone loves or values God in his-her life, sometimes horrible painful things happen that can break a person and cause him to lose his will to live. No amount of comfort and faith can change that. Perhaps a God is not needed at this time but one or two of his creatures.

[Artimas]

What seems supernatural is only that which has yet to be understood.. When the questions become answers based upon perception, is it still viewed as supernatural?

A delving into the depths of the unknown should always be an intelligent person's goal.

Magic, is just unexplained science. It keeps us going.

[Karpel Tunnel]

What seems supernatural is only that which has yet to be understood.

Yes, the word just confuses things and leads to discussions where people talk past each other. If it is real, it is natural. Even if it is exceptional.

[Arcturus Descending]

Artkmas,

.... When the questions become answers based upon perception, is it still viewed as supernatural?

What do you think?

[Artimas]

Artkmas,

.... When the questions become answers based upon perception, is it still viewed as supernatural?

I would say it isn’t, like KT said above. Just natural. It isn’t new, just not understood, there is no obligation of an understanding to us, from it.


What do you think?

[Arcturus Descending]

Artkmas,

.... When the questions become answers based upon perception, is it still viewed as supernatural?

I would say it isn’t, like KT said above. Just natural. It isn’t new, just not understood, there is no obligation of an understanding to us, from it.


What do you think?

But you used the word "perception", Artimas. I asked that question because you did not say based on knowledge or fact.
Based on how we perceive things, many things can still be seen as supernatural and our answers for them may not be "real".

[Karpel Tunnel]

But you used the word "perception", Artimas. I asked that question because you did not say based on knowledge or fact.
Based on how we perceive things, many things can still be seen as supernatural and our answers for them may not be "real".

All science is based on perception. Perceptaions that were repeatedly observed in controlled situations. Science is incomplete. Therefore there are likely some things that science has not yet confirmed that are real. The concept of supernatural is confused, because it implies that there are real things that are not natural. I think that's a confusing concept. It is better to say phenomena. So, let's take ghosts or psychic phenomena. People experience things and decide that not only was it real but that their interpretation is correct. If it seems like a paradigm shift would need to take place, were these things to be considered real within science, say, then at this point, even if they are real, they may not be confirmed. Just as all sorts of things were not believed to be true within science, until changes in the paradigms and/or more evidence came in. Phenomena in this category are natural, but not confirmed, but it may still be rational to believe in them.

There have been many things which people have believed, based on their perceptions, that were nto accepted by mainstream science, but which later turned out to be true.

[Arcturus Descending]

Karpel Tunnel

All science is based on perception. Perceptaions that were repeatedly observed in controlled situations.

True.
I think that my problem with Artimas' response was that he seemed to be saying that the answers come as a result of only perception (belief) but I may have been wrong there. That is just the beginning of it ~ perception and observation.

Science is incomplete. Therefore there are likely some things that science has not yet confirmed that are real.

More than likely. They will come.

The concept of supernatural is confused, because it implies that there are real things that are not natural. I think that's a confusing concept. It is better to say phenomena.

Like the rainbow.

Before the scientific secrets of rainbows were discovered, these colorful bands of light were wrapped in mystery and folklore. Every culture had its own theory for the rainbow’s purpose, and many times it had religious significance. Rainbows have been called such things as the tongue of the sun, road of the dead, bride of the rain, hem f the sun-god’s coat, road of the thunder god, bridge between heaven and earth, window to heaven, and bow of God. Biblical accounts establish the rainbow as a covenant, or promise, between God and every living creature that the earth never again will be destroyed by flood. ...

https://tpwd.texas.gov/publications/non ... ndex.phtml

So, let's take ghosts or psychic phenomena. People experience things and decide that not only was it real but that their interpretation is correct. If it seems like a paradigm shift would need to take place, were these things to be considered real within science, say, then at this point, even if they are real, they may not be confirmed.

Some people, like myself, easily dismiss these things although perhaps I can say that there may be something to psychic phenomena. Am I and others as wrong, scientifically, to dismiss these things as others are to automatically believe them without question or doubt?

Just as all sorts of things were not believed to be true within science, until changes in the paradigms and/or more evidence came in. Phenomena in this category are natural, but not confirmed, but it may still be rational to believe in them.

For instance?

There have been many things which people have believed, based on their perceptions, that were nto accepted by mainstream science, but which later turned out to be true.

Yes, isn't science wonderful?

[Karpel Tunnel]

Like the rainbow.

Or like rogue waves or that elephants could communicate over huge distances. People who were correct about these huge solitary waves and about elephant capabilities were told they were being irrational. Until much, much later when it turned out they correct.

Some people, like myself, easily dismiss these things although perhaps I can say that there may be something to psychic phenomena. Am I and others as wrong, scientifically, to dismiss these things as others are to automatically believe them without question or doubt?

I doubt most people automtically believe. It is likely based on experience. This, of course, does not mean it is right. You're not wrong scientifically, nor are you right to dismiss them. One can always say 'I have no reason to believe these things'. But my point was not about you, it was about the use of the word supernatural. If, say, it turns out those things are true, they are not supernatural phenomena, they are natural phenomena. To call something supernatural is to make it sounds like it is something other than nature. It's either real or not.

Just as all sorts of things were not believed to be true within science, until changes in the paradigms and/or more evidence came in. Phenomena in this category are natural, but not confirmed, but it may still be rational to believe in them.

For instance?

I guess I have to start by asking if you really don't know this is the case. But sure in Newton space and time are absolute, but Einstein showed they are relative. Quantum Mechanics has a wealth of things that scientists dismissed and dismissed until it was the case. The ability of animals to be able to use language like they do or to learn to solve certain problems was scoffed at then not. Scientists often deal with the resistence within the scientific community.

There have been many things which people have believed, based on their perceptions, that were nto accepted by mainstream science, but which later turned out to be true.

Yes, isn't science wonderful?

That seems like a disconnected conclusion, though I agree, just not as a conclusion to that. Often things are dismissed, when it would be more correct to simply say I do not see enough evidence for me to believe that. The scientific community has been as guilty of this as pretty much any group.

IOW they have binary thinking: science says it is true, it's true. If science does not say this, it's false. This is obviously contradicted by the history of science itself.

[Arcturus Descending]

Like the rainbow.

Or like rogue waves or that elephants could communicate over huge distances. People who were correct about these huge solitary waves and about elephant capabilities were told they were being irrational. Until much, much later when it turned out they correct.

Some people, like myself, easily dismiss these things although perhaps I can say that there may be something to psychic phenomena. Am I and others as wrong, scientifically, to dismiss these things as others are to automatically believe them without question or doubt?

I doubt most people automtically believe. It is likely based on experience. This, of course, does not mean it is right. You're not wrong scientifically, nor are you right to dismiss them. One can always say 'I have no reason to believe these things'. But my point was not about you, it was about the use of the word supernatural. If, say, it turns out those things are true, they are not supernatural phenomena, they are natural phenomena. To call something supernatural is to make it sounds like it is something other than nature. It's either real or not.

Just as all sorts of things were not believed to be true within science, until changes in the paradigms and/or more evidence came in. Phenomena in this category are natural, but not confirmed, but it may still be rational to believe in them.

For instance?

I guess I have to start by asking if you really don't know this is the case. But sure in Newton space and time are absolute, but Einstein showed they are relative. Quantum Mechanics has a wealth of things that scientists dismissed and dismissed until it was the case. The ability of animals to be able to use language like they do or to learn to solve certain problems was scoffed at then not. Scientists often deal with the resistence within the scientific community.

There have been many things which people have believed, based on their perceptions, that were nto accepted by mainstream science, but which later turned out to be true.

Yes, isn't science wonderful?

That seems like a disconnected conclusion, though I agree, just not as a conclusion to that. Often things are dismissed, when it would be more correct to simply say I do not see enough evidence for me to believe that. The scientific community has been as guilty of this as pretty much any group.

IOW they have binary thinking: science says it is true, it's true. If science does not say this, it's false. This is obviously contradicted by the history of science itself.

[Meno_]

Let's bring it down to earth with what has been am ongoing process historically. Reductionism and through ever expanding determinism through increasing awareness of phenomenological perception. The effect a of this is to transform or shift lreception to perception .

The point made by Peacegirl here can be effectively taken, that this shift of modality results in an approach to the in-finite, that is the appreciation of approach to the relative.

In fact there is an eager eigen , urgency, where by humanity is in a rush to get to the absolute.

There is an inherent guilt posited in the existential reproduction of what has been reified in and through 'being'.

What is this all about ? Is the connected perception to life as tantamount to the original sin.
We heard ofnthe symbolic asymmetry between good and evil, that the temtor, the snake was really god, in it's most elementary form, and the snake consciousness is inherent as a formal constituent of the very primal manifestation of the human embryo
The natural ( the pre evolutionary animal part of humanity) has reified the superhuman, by the adaption of the 'word' which , in spite of the showing that some animals have their own form of communication , do suggest an existential jump that dis in fact appeared as extraordinary, and supernaturally sourced.
I make the distinction here of ascribing such a jump as phenomenological not logical.
This, in fact, literally introduced the 'Naturalistic Fallacy' logically, literally.
By such introduction to logical fallacy, the separation between the natural and super natural is assigned and assured.

The effect of this breakdown in the bicameral mind, is. that the natural and the 'simulated' intelligence attains a connection, which can only be understood in religious and not mechanical or scientific methodology.
That is why conventional religion is losing adherents.
However such results in the minority belief in faith rather then knowledge.
Then, eventually , supernatural and intelligent become fallacious and conflicting.

Guilt becomes the mode of understanding the word of God, who instituted original sin, as somehow at par with the pleasures of existential creation.

This is what Nietzche had in mind, and it does try to break the habit or viewing redemption in binary systems thought.

Either/or - (Kierkegaard) tries to het pit from the fallacy (Nietzche) but Nietzche wins the short term gain, he sees no reason in other then immediate gratification. Time is receding the tide of opinion.


And since consciousness is simulation of existence, and the reductive de-differentiation has an anti-reflexive destination for theoretical comparative telati with to more absolute and equivocally short circuited certainty, this 'fall' need not be feared, it is a fall toward and not away from absolute certainty into the immortal present.

[Greatest I am]

[

This is what happens when atheism spreads like the cancer it is.

A life giving cancer, but ignore the stats all you like to maintain your delusional thinking.

You might want to stop lying to yourself and others.

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

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

What seems supernatural is only that which has yet to be understood.. When the questions become answers based upon perception, is it still viewed as supernatural?

A delving into the depths of the unknown should always be an intelligent person's goal.

Magic, is just unexplained science. It keeps us going.

Not the usual dictionary definitions but that does not matter when creating your own ideology and language.

I agree that delving into the depths of the unknown is good and intelligent, but to believe that speculative nonsense as real, is foolish to the max.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Let's bring it down to earth with what has been am ongoing process historically. Reductionism and through ever expanding determinism through increasing awareness of phenomenological perception. The effect a of this is to transform or shift lreception to perception .

The point made by Peacegirl here can be effectively taken, that this shift of modality results in an approach to the in-finite, that is the appreciation of approach to the relative.

In fact there is an eager eigen , urgency, where by humanity is in a rush to get to the absolute.

There is an inherent guilt posited in the existential reproduction of what has been reified in and through 'being'.

What is this all about ? Is the connected perception to life as tantamount to the original sin.
We heard ofnthe symbolic asymmetry between good and evil, that the temtor, the snake was really god, in it's most elementary form, and the snake consciousness is inherent as a formal constituent of the very primal manifestation of the human embryo
The natural ( the pre evolutionary animal part of humanity) has reified the superhuman, by the adaption of the 'word' which , in spite of the showing that some animals have their own form of communication , do suggest an existential jump that dis in fact appeared as extraordinary, and supernaturally sourced.
I make the distinction here of ascribing such a jump as phenomenological not logical.
This, in fact, literally introduced the 'Naturalistic Fallacy' logically, literally.
By such introduction to logical fallacy, the separation between the natural and super natural is assigned and assured.

The effect of this breakdown in the bicameral mind, is. that the natural and the 'simulated' intelligence attains a connection, which can only be understood in religious and not mechanical or scientific methodology.
That is why conventional religion is losing adherents.
However such results in the minority belief in faith rather then knowledge.
Then, eventually , supernatural and intelligent become fallacious and conflicting.

Guilt becomes the mode of understanding the word of God, who instituted original sin, as somehow at par with the pleasures of existential creation.

This is what Nietzche had in mind, and it does try to break the habit or viewing redemption in binary systems thought.

Either/or - (Kierkegaard) tries to het pit from the fallacy (Nietzche) but Nietzche wins the short term gain, he sees no reason in other then immediate gratification. Time is receding the tide of opinion.


And since consciousness is simulation of existence, and the reductive de-differentiation has an anti-reflexive destination for theoretical comparative telati with to more absolute and equivocally short circuited certainty, this 'fall' need not be feared, it is a fall toward and not away from absolute certainty into the immortal present.

That is likely why the Jews get Original Virtue out of Eden while the more stupid Christians end with Original Sin.

Regards
DL

[Karpel Tunnel]

Or like rogue waves or that elephants could communicate over huge distances. People who were correct about these huge solitary waves and about elephant capabilities were told they were being irrational. Until much, much later when it turned out they correct.

How come you
copied my reponse?

[Arcturus Descending]

Or like rogue waves or that elephants could communicate over huge distances. People who were correct about these huge solitary waves and about elephant capabilities were told they were being irrational. Until much, much later when it turned out they correct.

How come you
copied my reponse?

Go back to Aug 9th, 12:29
The below is what I posted.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:

Arcturus Descending wrote:
Like the rainbow.

The below was your response.

Or like rogue waves or that elephants could communicate over huge distances. People who were correct about these huge solitary waves and about elephant capabilities were told they were being irrational. Until much, much later when it turned out they correct.


-and-
then my response

Some people, like myself, easily dismiss these things although perhaps I can say that there may be something to psychic phenomena. Am I and others as wrong, scientifically, to dismiss these things as others are to automatically believe them without question or doubt?

No. 1 I would never post someone else's response and call it my own.
No. 2 It must have been some fluke which you created by accident as far as I know.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Go back to Aug 9th, 12:29
The below is what I posted.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:

Or like rogue waves or that elephants could communicate over huge distances. People who were correct about these huge solitary waves and about elephant capabilities were told they were being irrational. Until much, much later when it turned out they correct.

-and-
then my response

Some people, like myself, easily dismiss these things although perhaps I can say that there may be something to psychic phenomena. Am I and others as wrong, scientifically, to dismiss these things as others are to automatically believe them without question or doubt?

That was your response to something else, on the 7th. The post on the 9th, the one YOU must be the creator of because it is your avatar, is a copy of my previous post. You copied my post.

No. 1 I would never post someone else's response and call it my own.

I wasn't accusing you of plagiarism, just of simply copying my post.

No. 2 It must have been some fluke which you created by accident as far as I know.

[/quote]I can't make posts with your avatar....

this post of YOURS, see the avatar...
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=195028&p=2735888#p2735607

is an exact copy of my post....
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=195028&p=2735888#p2735411
a post which has my avatar.

I think its very funny you are blaming me for what must have been your act. Presumably accidental, since it seems to have no point at all, but one that has to be yours.

[Arcturus Descending]

Karpel Tunnel,

I think that the best thing to do here is to forget about this. Quite frankly, I have no idea about what is going on and I will not hazard a guess...although I just might intuit that you are deliberately trying to convolute things here for whatever reason I have no idea. I think that we have derailed this enough! If I am wrong about my theory, I do certainly apologize to you. Perhaps it is simply a question of your not quite understanding the ins and outs of posting the quotes, etc. It can be confusing.

At this point, I am lost in muddy waters.

But there is nowhere in my few posts, under MY avatar, that I copied your response and made it my own. My response was like the rainbow in quotes and if you will look beneath you will see that your response is outside of my quote.


Arc: No. 2 It must have been some fluke which you created by accident as far as I know.

KT[/quote]I can't make posts with your avatar....

Perhaps it is not even necessary. I cannot know for sure but is it possible that someone can manipulate another's response within their own Avatar's answer. I am just asking. I am not saying that this is the case with you. It is not a good thing to be so easily deceived...


Arc:Some people, like myself, easily dismiss these things although perhaps I can say that there may be something to psychic phenomena. Am I and others as wrong, scientifically, to dismiss these things as others are to automatically believe them without question or doubt?

KT:That was your response to something else, on the 7th. The post on the 9th, the one YOU must be the creator of because it is your avatar, is a copy of my previous post. You copied my post.

On Aug 7th you did response to a post of mine. That is where I spoke about rainbows and then you responded to that and on Aug 9 I responded to your post. All I can gather here is that you added to your post to me and I have not yet had the opportunity to respond to it.

Incidentally, we do here on ILP have to copy each other's posts in order to respond to them (outside of the quotes) but at no time did I ever take your words and call them mine.

So, if if there is nothing else, can we please move on. .. I will respond to your post when I can.

I wonder what it is that the universe is trying to teach us here ~~ individually.

Namaste

[Arcturus Descending]

KT wrote:

I think its very funny you are blaming me for what must have been your act. Presumably accidental, since it seems to have no point at all, but one that has to be yours.

lol We must be in Mexico!

[Arcturus Descending]

Karpel Tunnel,

Hopefully, by this time, we have left Mexico.

Or like rogue waves

They are awesome to look at...even just googled. Waves are like something out of this world to me larger than life. How they do affect me.

or that elephants could communicate over huge distances.

That is something, isn't it? I recently read a book by Jodi Picoult called Leaving Time and I gained a lot of new insight and love for elephants. Something else to cry over. They are awesome. Sometimes I have no idea why I cannot still believe in God considering what evolution has brought us to. What a world!!!! What a Universe!!! Still to be discovered. lol

People who were correct about these huge solitary waves and about elephant capabilities were told they were being irrational. Until much, much later when it turned out they correct.

That holds true of many things which have not been seen or experienced by us. I do not think that that is necessarily a negative thing as long as we can keep an open mind.

Arc: Some people, like myself, easily dismiss these things although perhaps I can say that there may be something to psychic phenomena. Am I and others as wrong, scientifically, to dismiss these things as others are to automatically believe them without question or doubt?

KT:I doubt most people automtically believe.

I have my doubts about that but i suppose it is more based on the individual and what it is they feel a need to believe in.

It is likely based on experience.

Yes, I can agree with that. Based on experience too.

This, of course, does not mean it is right.

What is not right? To automatically believe?

You're not wrong scientifically, nor are you right to dismiss them.

True. You have to take the way of the scientist but most of us are not.

.... it was about the use of the word supernatural. If, say, it turns out those things are true, they are not supernatural phenomena, they are natural phenomena. To call something supernatural is to make it sounds like it is something other than nature. It's either real or not.

Well, unless I am misunderstanding your thought here - it is still "real" ~~ it is just NOT supernatural.
But I think that we can understand that to certain minds not having the knowledge to understand and so deeply embedded in the supernatural, that is the way in which they will see it. If I did not know better, I could see this awesome though scary Tsunami as supernatural -- it seems so above the ordinary and seems almost magical. It is in a way magical (not the superstitious) magical.

Just as all sorts of things were not believed to be true within science, until changes in the paradigms and/or more evidence came in. Phenomena in this category are natural, but not confirmed, but it may still be rational to believe in them.

True, like for some who believe in God. Based on what is seen, it can be rational to "see" a creator God albeit I wonder just how much what we believe is true.

I guess I have to start by asking if you really don't know this is the case. But sure in Newton space and time are absolute, but Einstein showed they are relative. Quantum Mechanics has a wealth of things that scientists dismissed and dismissed until it was the case .

Yes, I know this to be the case. I do not have a scientific mind nor an especially bright one but I kind of understand without really understanding much.

The ability of animals to be able to use language like they do or to learn to solve certain problems was scoffed at then not. Scientists often deal with the resistence within the scientific community.

Why do you think that was? Partly because we were afraid that that knowledge might make animals a bit more equal to humans? I was once in a forum for a little while where someone said that animals have no emotions. Probably viewed that way for the same reason - no way could they be like us ~~ having emotions. How could someone be that unintuitive and that unempathetic.

KT: There have been many things which people have believed, based on their perceptions, that were nto accepted by mainstream science, but which later turned out to be true.

Arc: Yes, isn't science wonderful?

KT:That seems like a disconnected conclusion, though I agree, just not as a conclusion to that.

Well, I just could not help myself and you are right. My response was kind of disconnected. hahaha I think that science is wonderful. I only wish that I had the mind to truly grasp it.

Often things are dismissed, when it would be more correct to simply say I do not see enough evidence for me to believe that. The scientific community has been as guilty of this as pretty much any group.

Yes that is a far better way to end the discussion.
Scientists are human too and can be bound up, religiously, by their thinking and beliefs, especially if they have given so much time and energy to something. Yes? No?


.

[Artimas]

I think we should settle it as perception is the thing that is super-natural or gives appearance of such to other things in observation or thought.

[Meno_]

I think we should settle it as perception is the thing that is super-natural or gives appearance of such to other things in observation or thought.

Is it then, tantamount to day, that super natural is sensible?