Hey! weah96 and FOLYKAZE, i suppose the op's intention for this thread was for robust discuss, not these person bashings.
Pls, lets all enjoy this thread.

FOLYKAZE:

Truth be told. . . . .I have witnessed an occassion where a professional doctor asked his patient to seek traditional means of healing. Not even once.

Go on... I'm all ears. Is this the end of the story? SMH. WTF happened to the patient after the doctor referred him to the traditional healer? That's the most important part which you conveniently omitted here. Did the patient die in the care of the traditional healer or something?

Weah96:

In the spirit of being a)nal, pedantic, and rude, did you mean to type "a phenomena" or is that another typo? If you could only retrieve your head out of your colon, you would notice that I never said the bolded. I included the word "seemingly" which is not an absolute affirmation like your pea brain interprets it to be. The definition you embrace is incorrect. There are lots of things which aren't understood by observers, yet not all can be considered supernatural. An example would be people who pick their nostrils and eat the boogers. I don't understand it, and neither does the scientific community. Can we assume that eating boogers is a supernatural occurrence? In order for something to be considered SUPER-natural (prefix super means ABOVE or BEYOND in English), it would have to exhibit elements that appear to defy natural laws. GTFOH.

This is not an English class bro.

What matters here is understanding the message I am trying to pass across.

And if you are all about picking grammatical errors, you can start the game with someone else but not me.



This is a definition from google

su·per·nat·u·ral - /ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective

1. (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.


I personally defined supetnatural as a term used to describe a phenomenon which are unexplanable scientifically yet and which are attributed to Spirits or Gods. God and spirits are simply natural forces, elements and energies personified.


Now ask yourself this simple question. . . .Hw can something that dey natural law manifest in the natural plain?

Weah96:

Go on... I'm all ears. Is this the end of the story? SMH. WTF happened to the patient after the doctor referred him to the traditional healer? That's the most important part which you conveniently omitted here. Did the patient die in the care of the traditional healer or something?

How is that your problem?

I asked you to define supernatural and you are yet to provide a meaningful definition.

Liveair: Hey! weah96 and FOLYKAZE, i suppose the op's intention for this thread was for robust discuss, not these person bashings.
Pls, lets all enjoy this thread.

Tell that to the one who doesn't write English. He's the source of the confusion.

Liveair: Hey! weah96 and FOLYKAZE, i suppose the op's intention for this thread was for robust discuss, not these person bashings.
Pls, lets all enjoy this thread.

The ground is already cleared. There is nothing to discuss here when I have defined supernatural and God.

The whole thing is locked. Only that some folks what to see things other way round. The so-called atheist that can not define God which they disbelieve in or define what supernatural is but dispute it even without knowing what it is.

If you have questions ask pls.

FOLYKAZE:

The ground is already cleared. There is nothing to discuss here when I have defined supernatural and God.
.

must everyone go by your definition if not then the ground is not cleared...

beejaay:

must everyone go by your definition if not then the ground is not cleared...

Lol . . .you still dey watch?

Analyze my definition and show me where it wrong. Then we can proceed. Hence, I don finish my case.

The source of supernaturals is God (defined as natural forces, energy and forces; from the naturalistic pantheism angle).

I don finish. . . .objection or make I waka?

FOLYKAZE:

This is not an English class bro.



Now ask yourself this simple question. . . .Hw can something that de[fies] natural law manifest in the natural plain?

Your problem is language comprehension, I swear. First, are you referring to my definition or the one you just copied from Google? Because in mine, I included the word "seemingly" and the poster who followed included "seems." Fair minded observers here can see the immense difference between what I wrote and what you're writing. To answer your silly question, that IS the meaning of supernatural. The minute you understand how it's possible, it then ceases to be labelled as supernatural.

FOLYKAZE:

Another one here.

Ye are god. . . .that is in the bible referring to man.

Does knowledge kills us?

Your parents, your very self and other consciousness are gods. . . .has knowledge kills you all?

For the main say, why cant you people stop viewing god as depicted by Abrahamic faith?

I love your reasoning

Weah96:

Your problem is language comprehension, I swear. First, are you referring to my definition or the one you just copied from Google? Because in mine, I included the word "seemingly" and the poster who followed included "seems." Fair minded observers here can see the immense difference between what I wrote and what you're writing. To answer your silly question, that IS the meaning of supernatural. The minute you understand how it's possible, it then ceases to be labelled as supernatural.

Guy you should already understand some people

FOLYKAZE:

Lol . . .you still dey watch?

Analyze my definition and show me where it wrong. Then we can proceed. Hence, I don finish my case.

The source of supernaturals is God (defined as natural forces, energy and forces; from the naturalistic pantheism angle).

I don finish. . . .objection or make I waka?

u define God as natural forces!!!!!!!
why not supernaturalforces instead of natural forces and why not supernaturalistic pantheism instead of naturalistic pantheism...

the point is your definition of God didnt even recognize anything super.... just because we cant explain something now doesn't makes it super, it only means we are ignorant of it now

or will u say prof. Pela is a super human just becuase he performed magic which i dont understand how and cant do it myself

beejaay:

u define God as natural forces!!!!!!!
why not supernaturalforces instead of natural forces and why not supernaturalistic pantheism instead of naturalistic pantheism...

the point is your definition of God didnt even recognize anything super.... just because we cant explain something now doesn't makes it super, it only means we are ignorant of it now

or will u say prof. Pela is a super human just becuase he performed magic which i dont understand how and cant do it myself

Gut stop this joke abeg. . . .you only want to pull my legs

FOLYKAZE:

Gut stop this joke abeg. . . .you only want to pull my legs

i can see u are rili rili working on your e-anger...the Foly i knew would have busted before

Weah96:

Your problem is language comprehension, I swear. First, are you referring to my definition or the one you just copied from Google? Because in mine, I included the word "seemingly" and the poster who followed included "seems." Fair minded observers here can see the immense difference between what I wrote and what you're writing. To answer your silly question, that IS the meaning of supernatural. The minute you understand how it's possible, it then ceases to be labelled as supernatural.

Weah96 my very good friend! I've been a silent observer all this while, I've always followed your posts. I can't remember where you ever picked up a quarrel with people. Please, remain my very good friend that you are. Please, don't go verbal.

Weah96:

Your problem is language comprehension, I swear. First, are you referring to my definition or the one you just copied from Google? Because in mine, I included the word "seemingly" and the poster who followed included "seems." Fair minded observers here can see the immense difference between what I wrote and what you're writing. To answer your silly question, that IS the meaning of supernatural. The minute you understand how it's possible, it then ceases to be labelled as supernatural.

Guy I have a little time to spend here so I wont say much.

If all you could capitalize on is the grammatical errors, then I have to quit on you. If you cant understand me, therefore I have to agree ywe aint communicating. . . .

I still cant find how the word 'seemingly or seems' affects your definition or better explain how it does affect it.

My question is silly? Your answer is silly too. . . .the joke is on you.

Now you have been trying to shift post from defying to understanding of natural principles.

Explain to me how defying equates to understanding pls. Or better still explain your statement 'defy nature or natural laws'; and explain the natural processes some people attributes to supernatural force implies the natural process violating or defying nature or natural laws.

beejaay:

i can see u are rili rili working on your e-anger...the Foly i knew would have busted before

He can never be predicted.

FOLYKAZE:

Yes

k

Weah96: Folly-Kaze you need to work on your folly, abi, grammar. It remains one of the requirements for posting s)hit here on NL. Stop being noisy when your grasp of the language is hanging by a thread. I wouldn't dare argue with Germans in German myself, lest I demonstrate my ignorance like you're doing here.

Seriously.

How can someone who barely grasps the language be so keen to engage in arguing semantics?

mmsen:

Seriously.

How can someone who barely grasps the language be so keen to engage in arguing semantics?

I wonder oh. He's very confused. All he needs to say is that he doesn't believe in supernatural phenomena, like many other people. Instead, he's here arguing semantics, rejecting definitions of words, twisting my words around, and being rude. I only gave him a taste of his own medicine.

torchwave: You know, syntax and sentence construction is not a yardstick of experience and knowledge.

When you begin to pick apart a person's sentence to ridicule him, it suggests you have nothing important to say, therefore, there's nothing you new you have to offer as far as the topic of discussion is concerned. Rather than employ your time and effort in puerile attempts at argument, it were better you said nothing to save the little respect you have left in the eyes of observers.

So typical of atheists. They never fall short of the expectation to turn any peaceful forum of discussion into a battlefield of bloodless verbal war.

It is very difficult to find a thread of discussion in this section that is devoid of verbal clashes when atheists are present. If this is how so-called intelligent folks express their opinion, I'd rather be listening to the cacophony of less intelligent species. At least, cacophony of animals is preferable to needless, unprovoked, pointless, noisy and irritating verbal exchanges by teenage adults.

1. I stated that he was incomprehensible (which he is).

2. He claimed that he had a better grasp of English and a better definition of the word "supernatural" than those who compile the dictionaries - anyone who has followed this thread can see that such a claim is laughable. I now see that he has added his own definition courtesy of google (which would in turn be courtesy of a dictionary), this reinforces point 1.

.

torchwave: You know, syntax and sentence construction is not a yardstick of experience and knowledge.
So typical of atheists. They never fall short of the expectation to turn any peaceful forum of discussion into a battlefield of bloodless verbal war.

WTF! Why the lame generalization?

torchwave: You know, syntax and sentence construction is not a yardstick of experience and knowledge.

When you begin to pick apart a person's sentence to ridicule him, it suggests you have nothing important to say, therefore, there's nothing you new you have to offer as far as the topic of discussion is concerned. Rather than employ your time and effort in puerile attempts at argument, it were better you said nothing to save the little respect you have left in the eyes of observers.

So typical of atheists. They never fall short of the expectation to turn any peaceful forum of discussion into a battlefield of bloodless verbal war.

It is very difficult to find a thread of discussion in this section that is devoid of verbal clashes when atheists are present. If this is how so-called intelligent folks express their opinion, I'd rather be listening to the cacophony of less intelligent species. At least, cacophony of animals is preferable to needless, unprovoked, pointless, noisy and irritating verbal exchanges by teenage adults.

Sire. . . .salute for stating the obvious

mmsen:

1. I stated that he was incomprehensible (which he is).

2. He claimed that he had a better grasp of English and a better definition of the word "supernatural" than those who compile the dictionaries - anyone who has followed this thread can see that such a claim is laughable. I now see that he has added his own definition courtesy of google (which would in turn be courtesy of a dictionary), this reinforces point 1.

Stop proving innocence that does not exist as far you are concerned in this discussion.

You came in an attempt to answer the question I directed at Weah96. The question you provided is incomplete, full of flaws and fails to fix in; that is wrong. Attached as your signatory is an insult (calling me ignorant) on my person and not my message as there is no engagement between us. When actually you did not know my own opinion on what you presented, insulting me straightaway and again concluding I am not being comprehendible points out torchwave's conclusion. . . .if not for all atheist but you in particular.

Your answer "Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces."

is incomplete because you failed to tell us what is been attributed.

Is full of flaws because practically, herbs made by the locals are regarded as having supernatural potentials. Very few or educated locals would consider herbs/concortion as medicinal science.

Another flaws in there pops up when locals among the yorubas claim Ogun is the moulder of bone. They are attributing bone to supernatural being.

Now let me showcase the flaws. . . .Herbs/concortion are perceived supernatural mixture; it potentials are aslo attributed to supernatural powers. Are you then going to say what the locals attributed to super powers really is supernatural? Herbs is herd, concortion is chemical mixture. . . Both natural processes are attributed to supernaturals. . . .

Moulder of bone is Ogun - supernatural god of Iron.

Literally, Ogun is personification of anything metalic because the ancient tends to view natural element as person or Gods.

Science claim calcium builds bone.

Calcium is metalic chemical element.

Then we can conclude that Calcium is personified as Ogun with supernatural attibutes.

Therefore the supernatural claim that Ogun is the maker of bone is right. There is nothing like deying nature or attributes toward a power that violate, transend and go beyond natural law in the equation. In the real sense, calcium, Ogun and the process of building bone is plain natural process. . . .

How then can you say a natural process is having attribute to supernatural beings, power and influences and defies, transend, violate and go beyond the natural law? Can you now see the flaws?


- fails to fix in because supernatural is a natural process which are unexplanable scientifically yet and which are attributed to Spirits or Gods. Spirits and Gods here are not monsters living behind the wind but natural energies that made up the universe and the universe itself.

A transcension of natural laws and nature cannot fit into a natural process. Therefore your definition is wrong and not fitting in.



The reason I refused to accept dictionary, God is a word abrahamically defined. . . . Is Christianity, Islam and Judaism the only faith using the word God? Has your dictionary look beyond this faith and it definition? Even though I cant dispute the fact that it is inputted by scholars, this minor error of not covering what God is outside Abrahamic concept should make me reject it just like the incomplete definition you posted.

Liveair definition contains lot of rationality. Even there are more to it from the way I defined mine. . . .I still give kudos to him for his token.

Why have you refused to be objective with the view of opinions? Must you insult me before giving in your own opinion?

If you try to get me wrong, why didnt you ask for more expression?

I rejected your argument, did you ask me for reasons and what brought me to that conclusion?

You can continue with picking grammatical errors; you are very much good at that. . . .but judging from your little inputs on this thread, you are empty and like you described me all together, the insult is much on you you.

FOLYKAZE:

Stop proving innocence that does not exist as far you are concerned in this discussion.

You came in an attempt to answer the question I directed at Weah96. The question you provided is incomplete, full of flaws and fails to fix in; that is wrong. Attached as your signatory is an insult (calling me ignorant) on my person and not my message as there is no engagement between us. When actually you did not know my own opinion on what you presented, insulting me straightaway and again concluding I am not being comprehendible points out torchwave's conclusion. . . .if not for all atheist but you in particular.

Your answer "Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces."

is incomplete because you failed to tell us what is been attributed.

Is full of flaws because practically, herbs made by the locals are regarded as having supernatural potentials. Very few or educated locals would consider herbs/concortion as medicinal science.

Another flaws in there pops up when locals among the yorubas claim Ogun is the moulder of bone. They are attributing bone to supernatural being.

Now let me showcase the flaws. . . .Herbs/concortion are perceived supernatural mixture; it potentials are aslo attributed to supernatural powers. Are you then going to say what the locals attributed to super powers really is supernatural? Herbs is herd, concortion is chemical mixture. . . Both natural processes are attributed to supernaturals. . . .

Moulder of bone is Ogun - supernatural god of Iron.

Literally, Ogun is personification of anything metalic.

Science claim calcium builds bone.

Therefore the supernatural claim that Ogun is the maker of bone is right. In the real sense, calcium, Ogun and the process of building bone is plain natural process. . . .

How then can you say a natural process having attribute to supernatural beings, power and influences. Can you now see the flaws?


- fails to fix in because supernatural is a natural process which are unexplanable yet and which are attributed to Spirits or Gods.

A transcension of natural laws and nature cannot fit into a natural process. Therefore your definition is wrong and not fitting in.



The reason I refused to accept dictionary, God is a word abrahamically defined. . . . Is Christianity, Islam and Judaism the only faith using the word God? Has your dictionary look beyond this faith and it definition? Even though I cant dispute the fact that it is inputted by scholars, this minor error of not covering what God is outside Abrahamic concept should make me reject it just like the incomplete definition you posted.

Liveair definition contains lot of rationality. Even there are more to it from the way I defined mine. . . .I still give kudos to him for his token.

Why have you refused to be objective with the view of opinions? Must you insult me before giving in your own opinion?

If you try to get me wrong, why didnt you ask for more expression?

I rejected your argument, did you ask me for reasons and what brought me to that conclusion?

You can continue with picking grammatical errors; you are very much good at that. . . .but judging from your little inputs on this thread, you are empty.

The word "supernatural is attributed to" - then the definition. That should be apparent to anyone who is versed in the English language.

For someone with such a poor grasp of the language you certainly make use of a lot of words.

As to your claim that god is "Abrahamically" defined...that is both amusing and disturbing. We have evidence of people creating gods long before the story of Abraham. Judaism is simply a continuation of the various of myths of that locality.

I hear people from Nigeria continuously talking about 'illiterates' and my grandfather has told me tales of the legions of unemployable graduates but without this message board I would not be aware of how bad the problem currently is.

mmsen:

The word "supernatural is attributed to" - then the definition. That should be apparent to anyone who is versed in the English language.

For someone with such a poor grasp of the language you certainly make use of a lot of words.

As to your claim that god is "Abrahamically" defined...that is both amusing and disturbing. We have evidence of people creating gods long before the story of Abraham. Judaism is simply a continuation of the various of myths of that locality.

I hear people from Nigeria continuously talking about 'illiterates' and my grandfather has told me tales of the legions of unemployable graduates but without this message board I would not be aware of how bad the problem currently is.

It hurts. . . . .the truth no matter the language and ways it is said.

Lol