speaking of magic and stupidity: recently i was talking to a girl i know. and i was drunk and she asked me what is my astrological sign. but being an ass and a drunk, i told her "who cares that **** is pointless stupid ****". and she got mad and told me i am condescending. then she went and told me that women's cycles are synced with the moon or something, which i had never heard of. anyways in the end it was ok i tricked her into thinking i am not an ass. but it sucked there for a moment.

apparently a larger percentage of women than you might think are into astrology. it is amazing.

i call it pretty disappointing compared to my cheetoh that is shaped like dale jr.

if you are going to beleive in the supernatural, how do you choose which ones? like why dont you beleive in alien abductions and probings and xenu or bigfoot and the loch ness monster or anything else. all those things are supported by "evidence".

if you are willing to beleive things based on crappy obviolsuly absurd evidence, then why would there ever be anything you dont believe?

Why is it so hard for people to accept that we can't control or explain everything?

As long as you believe in it, what's the point of trying to convince others?

alfredeneuman:

Good Lord! I'm in no way trying to convert someone here. My point is only that believing in the supernatural is not being superstitious or believing in magic. It's a rational explanation for events that are observed by human beings.

That is really the only point. It is just as logical and reasonable to believe in a Supreme Being as to not believe in one. I would think that it is more reasonable to believe in one than not but I admit my belief sort of colors my decision somewhat. Human beings are emotional so I'm not saying I know I'm right and the atheists are wrong. It's hard to know something at that level, really.

Again, it's reasonable to decide that the supernatural exists based on the same type of decision making that takes place in a court of law. Since science can't make a statement regarding the supernatural we are left to make a decision in another fashion.

If the decision is made that the supernatural exists then you have to come to the conclusion that when the supernatural acts upon the natural.......science would come to the wrong conclusion every time, without exception. This would leave men who only base decisons on science into an erroneous understanding of the world.

That is the point.

Simple eyewitness testimony is not completely sufficient. Any law enforcement person will tell you this. Eyewitness testimony is used as part of a case, but not the sole reason to convict. If ten people witnessed a crime, there will be 10 varying accounts as to what actually happened.

If you want to believe in the supernatural based off events that happened to you, that's for you to discern. But basing your belief on what someone else says or professes to film or record is setting yourself up for failure. Think crop circles, alien autopsy, bigfoot, etc. All of these are proven hoaxes, yet there are kooks who still believe in them.

yes it is. thats exactly what it is.

no it isnt

and it is magnificently bad.

no it isnt.

no it isnt.

no we arent. when something is unexplained it simply means it is unexplained. no magic needed.

it hasnt.

your logical if/then statements are not valid if the premise is ludicrous.

the point was miserable and embarassing.

Don't really know about that, I'm not a lawyer....maybe someone here who is could chime in if they are interested. If 10 people were witness to an event (murder) and all the other evidence was not allowed for a technical reason, (tough analogy I know, but trying to parrallel the idea that science cannot speak to the supernatural, by definition).....what would the verdict be?

I'd be curious to know. If I were sitting on a jury and they had ten eyewitnesses, one an expert in the field and they said person A was murdered by person B......with no testimony to contrary available, then what the hell.....I would have to vote to convict. Wouldn't you have to?

The fact that there are hoaxes doesn't invalidate the documented cases, ask Red.

martin, that is not an argument that is contradiction....(old monty python skit).

Look man, I realize you don't think you've ever experienced a miracle but that doesn't mean no one else has. If a man did walk on water what do you expect other people to do? Just go on about their business and say, "Gee, can't really explain that..".

Or see some woman levitating over a bed speaking Latin...."Gosh, nothing to see here, really....think I'll go watch some tv".

Who would react like that? You would want to know what the hell just happened.