― RJG (RJG), Wednesday, 27 August 2003 20:39 (9 years ago) Permalink
― Tep (ktepi), Wednesday, 27 August 2003 20:39 (9 years ago) Permalink
― Miss Cleo (Oops), Wednesday, 27 August 2003 20:40 (9 years ago) Permalink
if looked at pragmatically this would have to be taken on an individual by individual basis. (tho in the past i have argued that belief in god is NOT pragmatic since it necessarily means believing in an absolute Truth which would make any pragmatic decision always secondary to whatever that absolute Truth is. but we could go in circles with that line of argument.)
― ryan (ryan), Wednesday, 27 August 2003 20:43 (9 years ago) Permalink
― ryan (ryan), Wednesday, 27 August 2003 20:45 (9 years ago) Permalink
― oops (Oops), Wednesday, 27 August 2003 20:47 (9 years ago) Permalink
― Leee (Leee), Wednesday, 27 August 2003 20:58 (9 years ago) Permalink
astrology has never really produced any measurable results as far as i know. religion has neatly side stepped that question. (results are either highly subjective or in the afterlife).
if horoscopes had a high rate of being correct then i think people would take them VERY seriously.
― ryan (ryan), Wednesday, 27 August 2003 21:29 (9 years ago) Permalink
By 'sidestepping', neither has religion.
if biblical prophecies had a high rate of being correct then i would take it seriously.
― oops (Oops), Wednesday, 27 August 2003 22:18 (9 years ago) Permalink
― Scaredy Cat, Wednesday, 27 August 2003 22:52 (9 years ago) Permalink
― lolita corpus (lolitacorpus), Wednesday, 27 August 2003 23:04 (9 years ago) Permalink
― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 27 August 2003 23:10 (9 years ago) Permalink
For instance, I see things because light enters my eye, is focused somewhere in my head (upside-down, so I hear) and my brain "sees" the picture. I'm not even sure if people have figured out the FULL realization of how senses really sense anything, but presuming that's fully explained (doubtful, since still very little is known about the brain), why do organs interpret stimuli as sight, sound, smell, etc.? Because it's "necessary" for the survival of the organism? Does this imply some sort of intelligence or not? Sure sounds like it.
― Scaredy Cat, Wednesday, 27 August 2003 23:11 (9 years ago) Permalink
even were the universe beyond our understanding (which it most surely is) that doesn't mean God exists.
again im not sure any discussion of the supernatural can really occur because i dont think we can have meaningful conversation outside of rational parameters. (presumably kantian parameters?)
in any case, David Hume to thread.
― ryan (ryan), Wednesday, 27 August 2003 23:30 (9 years ago) Permalink
― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 27 August 2003 23:33 (9 years ago) Permalink
Where does thought come from?
What is instinct?
Why do "lightning calculators" come up with mathematical answers, if they have no idea how to work the concepts out on paper?
Why does the answer to a difficult problem sometimes suddenly "pop" into our head "out of thin air" only after we've completely given up on the idea?
Shit like that. I mean, I guess I could go on and on forever, but to me, I can believe in chaos theory, evolution and anything else that's considered "reality" at this point in time, and I still see an underlying intelligence in the cosmos. (Is it still called a "cosmos" or is that just a New Age term now?)
To me, it's all "supernatural" by popular conception, but it is completely NATURAL in reality.
― Scaredy Cat, Wednesday, 27 August 2003 23:41 (9 years ago) Permalink
I still don't see an argument other than: "there is stuff I can't explain - therefore there is an underlying intelligence to the universe." Why jump to conclusions?
― ryan (ryan), Wednesday, 27 August 2003 23:58 (9 years ago) Permalink
But. there is obviously "intelligence" in people and animals... but, do we go so far as to say there is "intelligence" in microcosms? I guess not.
What is intelligence, exactly? It's sort of funny that one definition of intelligence is "understanding," when we don't really understand what it is... Understanding, comprehension, the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge, the faculty of thought and reason. It's what drives people crazy, isn't it? Did philosophy ever explain it? I don't know, but it's pretty wacky stuff.
― Scaredy Cat, Wednesday, 27 August 2003 23:59 (9 years ago) Permalink
So can anyone tell me why established religions should be treated with more respect than astrology?
― oops (Oops), Thursday, 28 August 2003 02:21 (9 years ago) Permalink
― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 28 August 2003 02:23 (9 years ago) Permalink
Because I am A PoetThe gerbil of Mars was a generalissimo of jelly bean jarsAnd he had two bits of senseand two seconds of the denseFOG.
In an angry Iron Dog, where I navigated from...Lyons Road to Gehenna is an arbitrary assignmentTo the Nova Scotia Lox of planetary alignmentWhere gerbils run freeon the sands of GallileeIs the place where things are doneon the basis of consignment.
This folly of jackyls and nymphs of the sea,who sings songs of adornmentto the necklacess on Necklace Eve,They participate in the mother of all tournaments.
Anything happens and shit is possible,So here is it wot built a foundry wot built its foundation on such formulations, for starters, unstoppable:
There's a button of censors(which I don't have)'tis a Band-Aidfor the flummoxed shooter of nonsense(which is all salve)I am a shoo-bee,A doo-bee,A rompity-stompity floo-bee.
I am a Rompity-Stompity Romper Room.
― Natola (Scaredy Cat), Thursday, 28 August 2003 02:33 (9 years ago) Permalink
I'm not sure it can be done, but i think the strongest argument would be to say that there are ratiuonal arguments for believing in god. i cant think of any for astrology.
― ryan (ryan), Thursday, 28 August 2003 16:53 (9 years ago) Permalink
― oops (Oops), Thursday, 28 August 2003 19:03 (9 years ago) Permalink
― Ricardo (RickyT), Thursday, 28 August 2003 19:25 (9 years ago) Permalink
Acceptability: People are mostly intolerant, and atheists are just as intolerant as rabid fundamentalists.
― Orbit (Orbit), Friday, 29 August 2003 15:12 (9 years ago) Permalink
― oops (Oops), Friday, 29 August 2003 23:13 (9 years ago) Permalink
― Scaredy Cat, Friday, 29 August 2003 23:16 (9 years ago) Permalink
Some established religions have traits similar to astrology.
― A Nairn (moretap), Saturday, 30 August 2003 00:16 (9 years ago) Permalink
In an attempt to get along better with my mother (ARIES), I have taken up astrology. She has an ipad now and I have to help her find good web pages.
As a Libra, though, the reward is in the artwork and writing on some of these pages.
I enjoy tarot readings myself, but as entertainment.
― โตเกียวเหมียวเหมียว aka Bulgarian Tourist Chamber (Mount Cleaners), Monday, 21 May 2012 16:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
I'm learning about my moon sign today:
You may be familiar with your 'Sun Sign', but what is a 'Moon Sign'? The Moon is said to rule your personality, while the Sun rules your individuality, while the Ascendant Sun dictates our outer appearance and mannerisms (learn more about the Ascendant by clicking on its icon in the horoscope main menu).
You may be surprised to learn that you may illustrate more of your Moon Sign qualities than your Sun Sign (it should be noted though that the vast majority of the populous manifest their Sun Signs). By reading the description of your Moon Sign you will be able to judge how much the Moon affects your personality. The descriptions are quite general, but may ring true nonetheless.
― โตเกียวเหมียวเหมียว aka Bulgarian Tourist Chamber (Mount Cleaners), Wednesday, 6 June 2012 20:46 (11 months ago) Permalink
To answer the original question, the order of acceptability in the Western world seems to be something like:
Luck > deities that are intangible and don't affect people's everyday affairs > destiny/fate/horoscopes > ghosts, angels and other intangible spirits that may momentarily affect people's everyday affairs, but generally stay out of the way > paranormal powers in humans > deities in physical form > demons and other monsters in physical form.
― Tuomas, Thursday, 7 June 2012 12:06 (11 months ago) Permalink
Oh yeah, add "reincarnation" after destiny/fate.
― Tuomas, Thursday, 7 June 2012 12:07 (11 months ago) Permalink
> safe investments > talking cars
― lag∞n, Thursday, 7 June 2012 12:09 (11 months ago) Permalink
> animals wearing people clothes
― Julie Derpy (Phil D.), Thursday, 7 June 2012 12:19 (11 months ago) Permalink
> the legitimacy of sock puppets
― nerds being macho (remy bean), Thursday, 7 June 2012 12:29 (11 months ago) Permalink
you can take away my everything but don't take away my supernatural beliefs
― chris paul george hill (dayo), Thursday, 7 June 2012 12:49 (11 months ago) Permalink
My wife has a great many supernatural beliefs, but over a period of many years I have persuaded her to be self-skeptical enough that she does not use these beliefs as the basis for practical decision-making, and when she meets others who share her beliefs and set themselves up as teachers or gurus, she is very sensitive to whether these people have ulterior motives, such as money-making or power-seeking.
Under these conditions, I am very content not to directly challenge her beliefs in spirits and mysterious powers. If you treat them merely as interesting hypotheses that might have some explanatory power, but it is not clear whether other explanantions might not be stronger, then these become much more like intellectual exercises than belief systems.
― Aimless, Thursday, 7 June 2012 16:40 (11 months ago) Permalink