Comments on: Clueless or cunning?

By: A Response To bryce | TheWarfareIsMental

A Response To bryce | TheWarfareIsMental — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 03:39:49 +0000

[...] the usual haters are at it again, but in between the name-calling and flanking I noticed a rather composed comment from somebody by [...]

By: bryce

bryce — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 14:21:24 +0000

Yes, exactly.

By: PhillyChief

PhillyChief — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 23:05:24 +0000

Here's the problem with that. Once something could be shown to violate well tested principles, then the principles would be amended either across the board or for this particular something. That something would then be fully investigated and documented and before long, what do you have? I'd say a new category of natural.

So to me, the term "supernatural" really comes off as 'some shit I can't explain yet' and thus, is a placeholder term of ignorance. It's the same way "god of the gaps" works.

By: Cephus

Cephus — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 22:51:30 +0000

Far too many people use 'supernatural' incorrectly, just so it sounds a little more reasonable when they get around to applying it to their god beliefs. Supernatural, by definition, defies natural explanation, not only at the moment, but permanently. It is something that is entirely beyond naturalism, which is exactly what ghosts and gods and unicorns (for lack of a better example) would be.

That's why all claims of supernaturalism are inherently irrational on their face.

By: bryce

bryce — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 18:41:05 +0000

Yep. Though I would make a distinction between the "supernatural" appearance of water and an alien putting it there. The existence of some animal born and raised on another planet wouldn't necessarily violate any well-tested principles. To me, anything called "supernatural" implies some violation of well-tested principles.