Science Section > Science General Discussion


(1/2) > >>

I don't care for the implication present in the term "supernatural". In common usage it should be replaced with "subnatural" because it only exists in the minds of deluded under-beings. What does it even really mean? It doesn't exist in nature...ah but miracles show us it can interact with the natural world. Unless somebody honest is the witness. Can I get a witness?

Subnatural is a better word, I think, but I don't expect it to catch on.

Mike Cl:
Yeah--if it isn't natural, then it isn't.  According to the sheena's of the world, their god created everything--so everything is natural.  Can't be anything supernatural.  Miracles are simply aspects of nature we don't often see.  Since everything is natural, we can then test it--which is what science does.  Religion loves supernatural stuff, since it doesn't exist and thus cannot be put to any scientific test and has to be accepted because some priest or holey book says so.  That would make it subnatural. :)

And I love the way 'nature' is used in stores.  Buy it, for it is natural.  That is the best you can get.  Except, cowshit is natural and would not eat it because some can tells me it is natural.  Everything is natural. 

With billions of video cameras around we went from "parting of the seas", "dead men walking" and "feeding hundreds from thin air" to "your headache is now healed" and "I bless your Kosher bologna" and the occasional Rorschach blot of Jesus in a cloud or on an English muffin.

....And the scientifically minded Romans, Persians and Egyptians had this totally amazing magic crap going down in their own empires yet they didn't even notice...yet much lesser impressive events are recorded with great detail.

How about sidenatural? :p


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version