Do you believe in the supernatural?

[_oBSOLEte_]

I accept that people have personal belief as long as they don't act as if they're the undeniable truth and force it upon other or even could be harmful to them or the others.

We've already seen through history that some scientists can be very harmful to them or others. And that the "undeniable truth" some may present is always just a thesis waiting to be proven wrong (just like Bohr's atomic model).

 

[OmegaPunch's icon OmegaPunch OmegaPunch]

The first few seasons, for sure. Kinda fell off after a while. Then it fell off HARD later on.

Yeah, I completely stopped watching the show after that.
But maybe I'll rewatch it someday.

 

[Ikagura Ikagura]

We've already seen through history that some scientists can be very harmful to them or others. And that the "undeniable truth" some may present is always just a thesis waiting to be proven wrong (just like Bohr's atomic model).

I'd still ask what makes a belief more legitimate than a thesis.

Sometimes you cannot actually disprove a belief (since it's a belief) which is not that good.

Whereas the ability to disprove thesis and theories is what makes science more valuable.

Hitchens's razor has proven it:

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence".

 

[ClarityZero]

Hitchens's razor has proven it:

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence".

That is, as I previously stated, the literal antithesis of science. The irony of that philosophy is that it requires you to do the very thing it argues against: form an assertion without any supporting evidence.

If something can't be proven, that does NOT mean it is inherently untrue. It DOES mean that it can't be proven. It's value is impossible to objectively determine, but that doesn't preclude it from having value.

 

[DarkTownStrutters]

Of course the supernatural is real, i have been married to a demon for over two decades now.

 

[Ikagura Ikagura]

That is, as I previously stated, the literal antithesis of science. The irony of that philosophy is that it requires you to do the very thing it argues against: form an assertion without any supporting evidence.

If something can't be proven, that does NOT mean it is inherently untrue. It DOES mean that it can't be proven. It's value is impossible to objectively determine, but that doesn't preclude it from having value.

There's also "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (aka the Sagan standard) if you want.

Being able to be sceptic about these is also a scientific basis.

You need to be able to refute it.

 

[ClarityZero]

There's also "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (aka the Sagan standard) if you want.

Being able to be sceptic about these is also a scientific basis.

You need to be able to refute it.

Except that science isn't about refutation. It's about confirmation. That's the entire point. Science is the pursuit of truth, in whatever form it may take.

The irony of you quoting Sagan (or rather, Laplace, albeit indirectly) here is astounding. Sagan himself would certainly have agreed with my position, and Laplace, despite being atheist, likely would have as well, to at least some degree.

It would be remiss of me not to point out Sagan's own great failings, though. While I have no shortage of respect for his mind and his work... He was hardly a stranger to extraordinary claims, nor to skirting his own supposed principles. His famous documentary series was notoriously more fiction than it was the fact that it presented itself as.

 

[A man on a computer]

One side takes the concept as literal, the other thinks it's just a lie. A Tale as old as time itself.

 

[SoraSquood]

So my cat is like

Exactly the same as a cat of mine that died years ago right down to the little white trail under his right nostril and is very affectionate with me in particular.

Even though I call him by a different name he responds to a name he shouldn't even know.

Pretty spooky.

 

[blackfrostbufu]

I was on a walk one day and noticed my shoe was untied. Bent down to tie it and a freaking DOG CREATURE came and bit me right on my nose and I screamed so loud my throat hurt. Never saw it again after that but I never tie my laces without someone else to spot me these days.

(Artist's rendition)

 

[Ikagura Ikagura]

Except that science isn't about refutation. It's about confirmation. That's the entire point. Science is the pursuit of truth, in whatever form it may take.

The irony of you quoting Sagan (or rather, Laplace, albeit indirectly) here is astounding. Sagan himself would certainly have agreed with my position, and Laplace, despite being atheist, likely would have as well, to at least some degree.

It would be remiss of me not to point out Sagan's own great failings, though. While I have no shortage of respect for his mind and his work... He was hardly a stranger to extraordinary claims, nor to skirting his own supposed principles. His famous documentary series was notoriously more fiction than it was the fact that it presented itself as.

What does being an atheist have to do with the claim?

Also sorry but something should be both confirmable and refutable to be valid. If something cannot be refutable then it's not the scientific method, as simple as is.

Sadly there are people that are anything but scientific that believe in the supernatural and pretend it's real without any actual proof and use fallacies.

That's also how sects and other scams are working. Non-scientific people talking about the supernatural (and aliens) shouldn't be taken seriously.

 

[FlameSpice]

Maybe, idk.

 

[Ikagura Ikagura]

I do not believe in the "super"natural but I believe in scientific explanations of these rare events.

 

[Deleted member 884]

Yes, I believe the hit TV show Supernatural is a fucking masterpiece
View attachment 48045

Seasons 3, 4 and 5 are the best of the show.

 

[_oBSOLEte_]

Except that science isn't about refutation. It's about confirmation. That's the entire point. Science is the pursuit of truth, in whatever form it may take.

The irony of you quoting Sagan (or rather, Laplace, albeit indirectly) here is astounding. Sagan himself would certainly have agreed with my position, and Laplace, despite being atheist, likely would have as well, to at least some degree.

It would be remiss of me not to point out Sagan's own great failings, though. While I have no shortage of respect for his mind and his work... He was hardly a stranger to extraordinary claims, nor to skirting his own supposed principles. His famous documentary series was notoriously more fiction than it was the fact that it presented itself as.

Yes it's pretty ironic. Science is relegated to another materialist doctrine, another belief system. It has devolved from an agnostic tool and is just another cult nowadays. They worship Sagan. Hail Sagan!

 

[ClarityZero]

I was on a walk one day and noticed my shoe was untied. Bent down to tie it and a freaking DOG CREATURE came and bit me right on my nose and I screamed so loud my throat hurt. Never saw it again after that but I never tie my laces without someone else to spot me these days.

(Artist's rendition)
View attachment 48111

Geez, you can't just show something like that without warning us first! Truly the stuff of nightmares.

Post automatically merged: Mar 25, 2025

Yes it's pretty ironic. Science is relegated to another materialist doctrine, another belief system. It has devolved from an agnostic tool and is just another cult nowadays. They worship Sagan. Hail Sagan!

Snrk... That's pretty good. I like the little atomic model pattern, it's a nice touch.

Post automatically merged: Mar 25, 2025

What does being an atheist have to do with the claim?

Also sorry but something should be both confirmable and refutable to be valid. If something cannot be refutable then it's not the scientific method, as simple as is.

Sadly there are people that are anything but scientific that believe in the supernatural and pretend it's real without any actual proof and use fallacies.

That's also how sects and other scams are working. Non-scientific people talking about the supernatural (and aliens) shouldn't be taken seriously.

The reason Laplace being an atheist matters is because he likely wouldn't agree with me on the topic of religion, but on the topic of science, and how it's meant to be regarded, he likely would agree with me.

Science is nothing more than a tool to be used in pursuit of truth. It is not the end goal. You're treating science itself as a religion, while attempting to denounce the validity of faith.

Seriously, look at yourself. Look at your last statement. It's an exclusionary statement based solely on a difference of belief.

That's an assertion of "gospel" if ever there was one.

 

[Ruky Ruky]

I didn't know this would turn so heated.

 

[fake-kun]

Yes, I believe the hit TV show Supernatural is a fucking masterpiece
View attachment 48045

I thought people only watched it for the shipping.

 

[_oBSOLEte_]

Here's undeniable video proof that voodoo exists. Gives me the chills everytime.

 

[ClarityZero]

I didn't know this would turn so heated.

Unfortunately, it took a detour into religion and philosophy, which... Well, I don't really need to say any more than that, do I?

I'm typing this while listening to that greatest of voodoo practitioners, thanks to Obsolete, though, so it's definitely a mixed bag. XD

 

[Waffles's iconWaffles]

I definitely do.

We exist. So do plants and animals, some of which we still have to discover/find out about. Why shouldn't another layer be just beyond our reach?

 

[Gorse]

So do plants and animals, some of which we still have to discover/find out about.

I don't believe in any aspect of the supernatural, but this is the oooone thing I've always been a bit iffy about. If we can discover loads of new tropical spiders and deep sea fish every year, who's to say that a big hairy creature walking around in the woods couldn't exist? Something like Bigfoot or the Abominable Snowman or even the Loch Ness Monster don't really seem as inconceivable as, like, a dragon or a ghost.

 

[PrismRed]

I don't believe in any aspect of the supernatural, but this is the oooone thing I've always been a bit iffy about. If we can discover loads of new tropical spiders and deep sea fish every year, who's to say that a big hairy creature walking around in the woods couldn't exist? Something like Bigfoot or the Abominable Snowman or even the Loch Ness Monster don't really seem as inconceivable as, like, a dragon or a ghost.

Sometimes we don't need to go that far, we can check under the kitchen sink and there might be cockroaches, the only creature that would probably survive a nuclear apocalypse and outlived humanity.

 

[Ikagura Ikagura]

Something like Bigfoot or the Abominable Snowman or even the Loch Ness Monster don't really seem as inconceivable as, like, a dragon or a ghost.

The issue is that witnesses weren't even sure what they saw.

Trolls and Ents are conceptualised because of Pareidolia on stones and trees.

Dragons came from dinosaur bones (and perhaps our fear of lizards) and Cyclopes came from mammoth bones (with the giant "eye" being the trunk hole of the animal).

The Loch Ness creature being a surviving Plesiosaur is not logical.

 

[_oBSOLEte_]

Cyclops exists, tho.