You are the one speaking in absolutes, narrowed-mindedness, and empirical bullshit. That is the very definition of stupidity.

Congrats, kid. You've just shown yourself as an ignorant beast. Look for another website that is more suitable to your intellect.

You seem to have a misunderstanding of the words you are using. To clarify...

Supernatural doesn't equal religion. However, religion relies upon moral law which is traditionally seen as being dictated by the supernatural. If you want to debate moral law, that's fine, but I think you'd might want to find a different website. Also read Nietzsche, Kant, and Schopenhauer before doing so. For the record, I am more in agreement with Nietzsche.

"Science", in modern context, refers to the scientific philosophy practiced by neo-positivists. It's fashionable these days to dismiss reality when it can't be verified by mathematical logic. But I guess it's always been trendy to be stupid, arrogant, and foolish. No one wants to think anymore.

Furthermore, there is no religion/science dichotomy. It is stupid and simpleminded to even try to frame a debate or argument with this pretense. I know it's popular, but it's tiresome. I will ignore it. It's fueled by people's petty personal insecurities and psychological disorders. It is just as stupid and childish as saying you are "atheist", "agnostic", or "religious".

Trust thyself. The universe is too beautiful and awe-inspiring to be so dismissive.

You are talking in absolutes and creating a dichotomy that doesn't exist. I think you are also failing to understand both religion and science. Maybe you are a student. You are also holding a childish caricature of what is often attributed to the supernatural (e.g. "purple fish in your head")

Religion has nothing to do with the supernatural. It is a social construct. Religion has, however, created a mythos, fables of sort, to help define how one should live. Sometimes it relates to the supernatural. That certainly isn't one and the same.

Regardless, I won't be discussing religion with you nor is it relevant to this thread...

First, I hold no beliefs and only speak from experience, insight, and education. The same with those who came before me. So what does that say about your ability to reason? It means what you just said was nonsense (i.e. not applicable). That's a failure of reasoning and comprehension on your part. You shouldn't be so quick to dismiss thousands of years of thought; that's naively dangerous.

Neither does evidence contradict the supernatural, quite the contrary. This is a thread on the topic of cosmology, which is a subset of metaphysical philosophy which sets out to explain both the natural and supernatural.

Let's take a moment to describe what the supernatural is...

I will use the word you just used, "belief". If I believe something will happen, the likelihood of it occurring has been increased beyond measure. It's a paradox. Belief itself is power and has the ability to bend natural law. Science is beginning to recognize this in theory.

Take another example... for instance, higher thought itself is independent of a singular mind and is transcendental. I would attribute this to the supernatural. What about you? It certainly doesn't involve natural law.

Sure... Poetry, Philosophy, Art-- all higher schools of thought and reasoning that science derives its pursuits from.

What you are doing by holding the science of natural law as some supreme form of thought is dismissing its very origin. You are divorcing it from all beauty and higher purpose.

Let's take poetic symbolism as an example of a predecessor, as it is regarded as the highest form of thought and consciousness:

"the sound of stars" or "the grinding of cosmos". Only until recently did science recognize that stars emit sound and is actually a useful way to deduce their internal composition.

Same applies to the work of Newton and Einstein.

Bolded for emphasis. We call it "impossible" because it can't actually happen, like the supernatural. The improbable is not supernatural. Rolling 10 sixes in a row on an unweighted die is improbable but not supernatural. Things considered supernatural are not improbable- they are impossible. That is why they are labelled supernatural.

Take your 10 sixes and roll them again a billion times. Would you say that was impossible or improbable? Can you fully understand what it would take to reproduce our current existence starting from the big bang? No, you can't. Nor is it reproducible. We only have rudimentary theories based upon our current comprehension that we may never be able to practice.

What other forces are involved?

No, I agree with its implications it is just not all-encompassing. I am not the one with the hang-up here. You are the one narrowing its scope to what we understand as natural law.

What I meant is exactly what I said: that science is currently an "inferior" school of thought and means of reasoning. It has barely begun to explain life. Art is light years ahead.

Sort of. The God question is for children; you'd first have to define God. Good luck! However, once you stop equating the supernatural with religion, it begins to make sense that there are invisible laws that govern that natural law is incapable of evaluating.

Science is only one method of reason and measurement, math as its metric, and relies upon repeatable results. Therein is why it is limited in evaluating the supernatural. What we attribute to being of the supernatural is the occurrence of the improbable and impossible.

Science is still in its infancy and today depends upon higher schools of thought to direct its pursuits. Perhaps one day it will have a broader reach.

The Iroquois had something like this. The "fourth branch" being a panel of women who could oust and exile a chief.

There is a larger problem here. Many of the disenfranchised do not have the skills to cook for themselves.

There are some cases of legally owned guns being used illegally but that is not the norm.

Depends where you are. There is a large percentage in cities like Philadelphia. The reason for this is guns are purchased legally in surrounding areas and then sold to the black market. There isn't a strict limit to the amount of guns one can purchase within a set timeframe.

These guns can be bought legally and then sold illegally at a higher rate. Rinse and repeat.

citation needed.

Data suggests exact opposite.

This is why today's poor are wealthier than ever, and food is cheaper than ever.

In other words, who needs a middle class when the poor have a higher standard of living today than the middle class and even some of the wealthy of any period earlier than the 60's? The difference between middle class after all is just an arbitrary number on a spreadsheet that some government bureaucrat decided upon.

This is completely untrue and a tiresome argument from people who *have* wealth. The poor were far more wealthy in the 60s than now. The cost of living is exponentially higher today. We are entering an era of serfdom.

Unless you think having a cheap cellphone as being some form of "wealth" when it's a necessary, burdensome expense to even seek employment. The "wealth" you refer to is the exact opposite.... it's more burden and more expense while adding 0 value to the quality of life.

International laws? what? They only arose after the nuclear arms race and have never been abided by. There is only one justified cause for warfare and that's self defense, and even then it raises moral objections.

i kan reed already clarified, but I think I could help out a bit more.

Think more of the "human spirit" and all that that entails. A malaise is a lessening of consciousness. Asimov was a writer; his usage of "spiritual" has no religious connotations.

+5

The premise is that spirituality is not directly coupled with religion or God, but that spirituality (e.g. soul, faith, belief, intuition, love, higher thought) is a fundamental human characteristic that defines our existence (i.e. consciousness).

"Spiritual malaise" would mean a lack of or lessening of human consciousness.

For the senior web developers out there, browse to netflix.com, view source, and have a fun time critiquing. Netflix consists of average developers.

Surveillance is power and all pillars of power need to be checked by a counter force, else they will be abused.

And some smart people have also pointed out that they may have tried to do the exact same thing with Syria, since an apparent chemical weapons attack came shortly after Obama said that the use of chemical weapons would trigger a US military response.

Kerry dropped the ball on that one.