![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
There are currently eight "arguments against supernaturality" and four counter-arguments ("arguments in favour of supernaturality"), yet two of the latter include counter-counter-arguments! This is hardly fair, so I have removed the counter-counter arguments.
In the last "argument in favor" I have corrected some of the information and removed redundancy.
Philip J. Rayment 14:20, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
ghosts are true cause i saw a ghost doing a ghost poo
Hi all. I'd like to ask you, as people familiar with topics on or related to paranormal activity, to review the work at Natasha Demkina, "the girl with X-ray eyes", which has been undergoing a tug-of-war between a primary source and one of his critics. I've tried to bring it to at least NPOV but apparently I muddled the technicalities and there are still sourcing needs.
Would appreciate your comments -- the article is currently under protection but I think it can be taken out shortly.
TIA, - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Do any of you perhaps think that this article might be renamed 'The supernatural'? The reason I say this is that when you say, 'Supernatural,' you generally mean the adjective. The noun form is almost always (I believe) indicated by adding a definite article in front, thus, 'The supernatural'. It seems to make more sense to me. Thanks for considering, Vlmastra 22:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I can't make heads or tails of the last paragraph under "Arguments against"; It seems to be saying that if you hold one supernatural belief, but don't believe all of them, then that somehow proves them all automatically false. WhaHuh?? What kind of twisted pseudologic is that? I'd have an easier time believing in the supernatural than in that conclusion. To whoever wrote that mess, as a rational skeptic, I beg of you: please don't be on our side. That was painful to read. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Noclevername ( talk • contribs) 23:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
Did you all ever stop to wonder whether or not religion is a science. A record keep of supernatural events that can't be catagorized into the mainstream deffinition of science. Repetative events. For example the buhdist belive that through medition and pondering a state of higher egsitance can be obtained, science has proven that "finding yourself" , the modern term, leads to more fullfilling life and heallthier lives at that. scientifically when poeple get struck by lightning weird things happen to their brain and bodies, some good and some not so good. maybe the buhdist route might take a little longer but it is probbible safer. Similair teachers are within both christs "life everlasting" teaching and in the hindu realms as well. Babalonyan scholars thought the Hebrew bible was an amazing conglomeration of sociology in both personal and cultural context. But thats how they get you huh. After you start to explore the Realities of the religions that have survived and quite a few don't. you start to understand how and why religion is there in the first place. To understand that which in not understood. I belive in god for what its worth.
(--ThinkFest)
Added an "Unreferenced" tag to the whole article 11 April 2007. This is an important article with a lot of forward statements that need to be supported with references. Later on I may add more specific citation needed tags. Cheers. Schmitty120 13:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Usually the phenomenon doesn’t vanish. The grill cheese sandwich with what looks like a likeness of Jesus is still there. It is usually the case that the explanation of the phenomena in terms of a specific version of the supernatural is found to be inadequate or inferior in predictive power to other explanations. This article as well as many others in Wikipedia suffers from a lack of distinction between the phenomena and a specific explanation. Gkochanowsky ( talk) 18:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Supernatural things can't be explained. Why argue?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.235.41.119 ( talk) 01:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
I think you are re correcting the above sentence when it doesnt need to be corrected, the sentence with `their` is right, as it refers to the person, the verb that you are trying to correct is wrong as it doesnt refer to `their`, what you are trying to correct is `they`re`, short for `they are`. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndod ( talk • contribs) 23:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I noticed a bias in the Arguments For and Against sections and have removed it. Mike0001 ( talk) 21:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I think thats a good idea Tutonite ( talk) 04:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Why does this article start with the Controversy, before anyone has a chance to understand what supernatural even is?
Secondly, I had to quit reading because there was more in the article about Materialism, than there was about Supernatural. Hegelian Dialectic does not inform, but clouds the actual topic.
Third, since the article has be usurped and is about Materialism (nominally, marginally, about Supernatural) then we need to examine Materialism's follies. Materialism is a subjective view of the universe, starting with bias, and ending with the same bias ("I think only the physical universe exists"). Hence Materialism belies itself. I could go on. Can we make this article about Supernatural, please? 99.161.154.162 ( talk) 17:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, I have tried to improve section 1, paragraph 2, the part after the quotes. Please examine my edits. I have also eliminated references to Superman and Wolverine as these are purely fictional, not supernatural. Talkingtomypocket 00:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
There are currently eight "arguments against supernaturality" and four counter-arguments ("arguments in favour of supernaturality"), yet two of the latter include counter-counter-arguments! This is hardly fair, so I have removed the counter-counter arguments.
In the last "argument in favor" I have corrected some of the information and removed redundancy.
Philip J. Rayment 14:20, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
ghosts are true cause i saw a ghost doing a ghost poo
Hi all. I'd like to ask you, as people familiar with topics on or related to paranormal activity, to review the work at Natasha Demkina, "the girl with X-ray eyes", which has been undergoing a tug-of-war between a primary source and one of his critics. I've tried to bring it to at least NPOV but apparently I muddled the technicalities and there are still sourcing needs.
Would appreciate your comments -- the article is currently under protection but I think it can be taken out shortly.
TIA, - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Do any of you perhaps think that this article might be renamed 'The supernatural'? The reason I say this is that when you say, 'Supernatural,' you generally mean the adjective. The noun form is almost always (I believe) indicated by adding a definite article in front, thus, 'The supernatural'. It seems to make more sense to me. Thanks for considering, Vlmastra 22:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I can't make heads or tails of the last paragraph under "Arguments against"; It seems to be saying that if you hold one supernatural belief, but don't believe all of them, then that somehow proves them all automatically false. WhaHuh?? What kind of twisted pseudologic is that? I'd have an easier time believing in the supernatural than in that conclusion. To whoever wrote that mess, as a rational skeptic, I beg of you: please don't be on our side. That was painful to read. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Noclevername ( talk • contribs) 23:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
Did you all ever stop to wonder whether or not religion is a science. A record keep of supernatural events that can't be catagorized into the mainstream deffinition of science. Repetative events. For example the buhdist belive that through medition and pondering a state of higher egsitance can be obtained, science has proven that "finding yourself" , the modern term, leads to more fullfilling life and heallthier lives at that. scientifically when poeple get struck by lightning weird things happen to their brain and bodies, some good and some not so good. maybe the buhdist route might take a little longer but it is probbible safer. Similair teachers are within both christs "life everlasting" teaching and in the hindu realms as well. Babalonyan scholars thought the Hebrew bible was an amazing conglomeration of sociology in both personal and cultural context. But thats how they get you huh. After you start to explore the Realities of the religions that have survived and quite a few don't. you start to understand how and why religion is there in the first place. To understand that which in not understood. I belive in god for what its worth.
(--ThinkFest)
Added an "Unreferenced" tag to the whole article 11 April 2007. This is an important article with a lot of forward statements that need to be supported with references. Later on I may add more specific citation needed tags. Cheers. Schmitty120 13:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Usually the phenomenon doesn’t vanish. The grill cheese sandwich with what looks like a likeness of Jesus is still there. It is usually the case that the explanation of the phenomena in terms of a specific version of the supernatural is found to be inadequate or inferior in predictive power to other explanations. This article as well as many others in Wikipedia suffers from a lack of distinction between the phenomena and a specific explanation. Gkochanowsky ( talk) 18:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Supernatural things can't be explained. Why argue?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.235.41.119 ( talk) 01:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
I think you are re correcting the above sentence when it doesnt need to be corrected, the sentence with `their` is right, as it refers to the person, the verb that you are trying to correct is wrong as it doesnt refer to `their`, what you are trying to correct is `they`re`, short for `they are`. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndod ( talk • contribs) 23:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I noticed a bias in the Arguments For and Against sections and have removed it. Mike0001 ( talk) 21:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I think thats a good idea Tutonite ( talk) 04:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Why does this article start with the Controversy, before anyone has a chance to understand what supernatural even is?
Secondly, I had to quit reading because there was more in the article about Materialism, than there was about Supernatural. Hegelian Dialectic does not inform, but clouds the actual topic.
Third, since the article has be usurped and is about Materialism (nominally, marginally, about Supernatural) then we need to examine Materialism's follies. Materialism is a subjective view of the universe, starting with bias, and ending with the same bias ("I think only the physical universe exists"). Hence Materialism belies itself. I could go on. Can we make this article about Supernatural, please? 99.161.154.162 ( talk) 17:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, I have tried to improve section 1, paragraph 2, the part after the quotes. Please examine my edits. I have also eliminated references to Superman and Wolverine as these are purely fictional, not supernatural. Talkingtomypocket 00:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)