|
|
Post by faustus5 on Sept 13, 2019 10:21:50 GMT
I believe there are things in this world that cannot be scientifically quantified. Can we quantify love? Or see it? Or feel it? But we know it exists - we assume it's real. "Love" is a blurry concept which depends on social norms of behavior to be confirmed. No one believes that another loves without behavioral evidence. This is why the idea of love is not controversial and no one really denies it is real. Try comparing apples to apples, kay?
|
|
|
|
Post by Morgana on Sept 13, 2019 10:37:30 GMT
I believe there are things in this world that cannot be scientifically quantified. Can we quantify love? Or see it? Or feel it? But we know it exists - we assume it's real. "Love" is a blurry concept which depends on social norms of behavior to be confirmed. No one believes that another loves without behavioral evidence. This is why the idea of love is not controversial and no one really denies it is real. Try comparing apples to apples, kay? Behavioural evidence such as a person speaking in tongues or super strength such as exhibited by some people said to be demonically possessed? I've never seen anyone 'demonically possessed' so I can't say if I believe it's real or not, but then again I can't say for sure that it isn't real precisely because I haven't witnessed it.
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Sept 13, 2019 10:52:38 GMT
"Love" is a blurry concept which depends on social norms of behavior to be confirmed. No one believes that another loves without behavioral evidence. This is why the idea of love is not controversial and no one really denies it is real. Try comparing apples to apples, kay? Behavioural evidence such as a person speaking in tongues or super strength such as exhibited by some people said to be demonically possessed? I've never seen anyone 'demonically possessed' so I can't say if I believe it's real or not, but then again I can't say for sure that it isn't real precisely because I haven't witnessed it. There is no serious evidence that "speaking in tongues" is anything but babbling nonsense and no evidence that "super strength" is anything more than adrenaline.
|
|
|
|
Post by ᵗʰᵉᵃᵘˣᵖʰᵒᵘ on Sept 13, 2019 11:16:24 GMT
I’ve seen this movie but I can’t remember much about it. I know the director also directed the Keanu Reeves remake of “The Day the Earth Stood Still”, which bombed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Morgana on Sept 13, 2019 13:30:37 GMT
Behavioural evidence such as a person speaking in tongues or super strength such as exhibited by some people said to be demonically possessed? I've never seen anyone 'demonically possessed' so I can't say if I believe it's real or not, but then again I can't say for sure that it isn't real precisely because I haven't witnessed it. There is no serious evidence that "speaking in tongues" is anything but babbling nonsense and no evidence that "super strength" is anything more than adrenaline. As I said, I have never seen someone that was declared to be demonically possessed so I can't say either way, but I have witnessed two things that I can't explain and I know of others who have also. Some things are like faith, you can't quantify them. Not that I'm saying we should believe something right away without some standard to go by.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 13, 2019 15:50:13 GMT
OK then: how would one ' prove' exorcism? (As opposed to different types of mental illness, say) No answer here. No answer here either. I understand the Archbishop of Canterbury speaks in tongues, presumably since he is full of the holy spirit, everyday. But to everyone else it would be gibberish. I only recently had cause to remind you that I have a badly autistic brother and such language is particularly offensive. I tell you once again in the hope you can remain civilised. You reach too easily for reprehensible terms. You confuse the point I was making which is that something can be true for one or some, without necessarily being true for everyone else, especially when encompassing statements containing abstract ideal objects. Hence it is true for Muslims that the illiterate Mohammed received dictation from the Angel Gabriel in a cave, likewise it is true for some Christians that Mary remained a virgin. This is not the same as denying an external reality, it is just that this external reality can be hypothetical and is not assumed, to the benefit of personal truth. Science of course is typically concerned with public not personal truths, but then you are never really bothered much with it anyway. Whether or not unobserved objects exist is a whole other (if related) can of philosophical worms, which is what you were talking of. I personally think they do, but to distinguish between that which might and that which does exist it is best to have positive evidence. I hope that helps.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 13, 2019 16:00:58 GMT
That's because for anyone with the discipline and standards that an understanding of science and human nature impose, there really is no evidence of supernatural phenomena. For someone with no standards such as yourself, you'll always find reasons to be deeply gullible, and even be proud of it. Perhaps your problem is with English rather than science. 1 I have seen no evidence. 2 There is no evidence. Sentences 1 and 2 do not necessarily mean the same thing. The same might be said of : 1 I have seen no evidence 2 I assume there must be evidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 13, 2019 16:11:55 GMT
the incredulous refuse to be impressed by anything. I believe there are things in this world that cannot be scientifically quantified. Can we quantify love? Or see it? Or feel it? But we know it exists - we assume it's real. As one of the incredulous when in regards to certain claims of the metaphysical in general,or the the religious in particular, I have long learned not to be easily impressed. This is probably wise when remembering, for instance, a long history of mendacity, the conflicting claims of the major faiths and lack of extraordinary evidence for the central extraordinary claims. As for love, it is not only humans who mate for life. I don't think it is a power from above, or 'from the heart' but just the sentimentalised (and extremely enjoyable) psychological manifestation of a biological imperative (one which is more defined in some societies than others it may be said). But it is dangerous to assume that because there are something we cannot see that exists that that is true of all proposed invisibles.
|
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Sept 13, 2019 20:24:06 GMT
It won a few awards.
Saturn Award for Best Horror Film - 2006
Golden Trailer for Best Horror - 2006
MTV Movie Award for Best Frightened Performance (Jennifer Carpenter) - 2006
Scream Award for Breakout Performance (Jennifer Carpenter) - 2006 What I especially disliked was that the movie "disproved" exorcism and what are known as "proofs" of the spirit to people who have the rare experiences with them. We've been over it before on this board. If a person speaks a foreign language "without study or training" most people are going to believe they actually had study and training but are lying about it. A child's own mother is one of very few people who will be certain what study or training there was. Similarly, knowledge of some very private event in a person's life is going to be disregarded by the wide world as a scam, only the person certain the information could only be obtained through extrasensory perception will be impressed. You perhaps noticed that there are several mentally retarded people on this board who are rather adamant that "there is no evidence" of spiritual phenomena. What is true is that the evidence is not generally available to the wide world for the reasons I mentioned. The movie The Exorcism of Emily Rose will make the doubters feel triumphant without good reason. Otherwise the movie was a typical fright movie. I suspect some of the "awards" were the result of the military grunts who are determined to "win the game" even though they obviously do not deserve to win.
I felt it leaned more towards the spiritual side. The doubters seemed like people I would gladly punch in the face.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 14, 2019 7:43:53 GMT
Perhaps your problem is with English rather than science. 1 I have seen no evidence. 2 There is no evidence. Sentences 1 and 2 do not necessarily mean the same thing. The same might be said of : 1 I have seen no evidence 2 I assume there must be evidence. Isn't that amusing? Whom do you think assumes there must be evidence? I'm certain I don't. Are we allowed to scold people now? If you're going to scold people at least make certain first they deserve it. Be careful too of their medical conditions. I've been told that's important.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 14, 2019 7:52:03 GMT
the incredulous refuse to be impressed by anything. I believe there are things in this world that cannot be scientifically quantified. Can we quantify love? Or see it? Or feel it? But we know it exists - we assume it's real. As one of the incredulous when in regards to certain claims of the metaphysical in general,or the the religious in particular, I have long learned not to be easily impressed. This is probably wise when remembering, for instance, a long history of mendacity, the conflicting claims of the major faiths and lack of extraordinary evidence for the central extraordinary claims. As for love, it is not only humans who mate for life. I don't think it is a power from above, or 'from the heart' but just the sentimentalised (and extremely enjoyable) psychological manifestation of a biological imperative (one which is more defined in some societies than others it may be said). But it is dangerous to assume that because there are something we cannot see that exists that that is true of all proposed invisibles. Many people make the same claim and yet are rather easily and obviously duped by anything calling itself science. That isn't good what with all that mendacity flying around.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2019 7:54:37 GMT
It's alright in the pantheon of possession films.
Hovers between a horror and a courtroom drama.
Worth a watch.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 14, 2019 7:59:04 GMT
What I especially disliked was that the movie "disproved" exorcism and what are known as "proofs" of the spirit to people who have the rare experiences with them. We've been over it before on this board. If a person speaks a foreign language "without study or training" most people are going to believe they actually had study and training but are lying about it. A child's own mother is one of very few people who will be certain what study or training there was. Similarly, knowledge of some very private event in a person's life is going to be disregarded by the wide world as a scam, only the person certain the information could only be obtained through extrasensory perception will be impressed. You perhaps noticed that there are several mentally retarded people on this board who are rather adamant that "there is no evidence" of spiritual phenomena. What is true is that the evidence is not generally available to the wide world for the reasons I mentioned. The movie The Exorcism of Emily Rose will make the doubters feel triumphant without good reason. Otherwise the movie was a typical fright movie. I suspect some of the "awards" were the result of the military grunts who are determined to "win the game" even though they obviously do not deserve to win.
I felt it leaned more towards the spiritual side. The doubters seemed like people I would gladly punch in the face. I know people who would hire you to do that, not that you should take such employment.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 14, 2019 7:59:58 GMT
The same might be said of : 1 I have seen no evidence 2 I assume there must be evidence. Isn't that amusing? Whom do you think assumes there must be evidence? I'm certain I don'tAre we allowed to scold people now? If you're going to scold people at least make certain first they deserve it. Be careful too of their medical conditions. I've been told that's important. ...and yet you do...ALL the time. That position is the substance of the God of the Gaps argument which you employ on here constantly and consistently.. ie 1. I have seen no evidence from science. 2. The earth exists so it must be God created.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 14, 2019 8:10:12 GMT
Isn't that amusing? Whom do you think assumes there must be evidence? I'm certain I don'tAre we allowed to scold people now? If you're going to scold people at least make certain first they deserve it. Be careful too of their medical conditions. I've been told that's important. ...and yet you do...ALL the time. That position is the substance of the God of the Gaps argument which you employ on here constantly and consistently.. ie 1. I have seen no evidence from science. 2. The earth exists so it must be God created. Your terrible mistake is to dismiss all negative proofs as if none are possible. Some are and some are not. I explained how it is the scope of a proof that makes it possible or not. Whether the proof is positive or negative is actually irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 14, 2019 8:19:45 GMT
I turned my computer on at 3 am Eastern Daylight Time to see whether anything was amiss. That was about an hour ago. Everything seems fine with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by fatpaul on Sept 14, 2019 16:38:40 GMT
I can never really dislike a film that stars Tom Wilkinson.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 14, 2019 17:19:26 GMT
The same might be said of : 1 I have seen no evidence 2 I assume there must be evidence. Isn't that amusing? Whom do you think assumes there must be evidence? I'm certain I don't. It is interesting that you assume that there is no evidence for actual exorcism of demons. But not surprising. I would listen to your doctor then, if that is what he says.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 14, 2019 17:28:10 GMT
As one of the incredulous when in regards to certain claims of the metaphysical in general,or the the religious in particular, I have long learned not to be easily impressed. This is probably wise when remembering, for instance, a long history of mendacity, the conflicting claims of the major faiths and lack of extraordinary evidence for the central extraordinary claims. As for love, it is not only humans who mate for life. I don't think it is a power from above, or 'from the heart' but just the sentimentalised (and extremely enjoyable) psychological manifestation of a biological imperative (one which is more defined in some societies than others it may be said). But it is dangerous to assume that because there are something we cannot see that exists that that is true of all proposed invisibles. Many people make the same claim and yet are rather easily and obviously duped by anything calling itself science. That isn't good what with all that mendacity flying around. Your idea of science often has less to do with such issues than simple verification, without which it is hard to be impressed especially when the usual extraordinary claims are in play. Also, one still remembers that all your definitions, including that of science here, have been admitted as ad hoc, arbitrary (ie are just your opinion), and apparently require mutual agreement to be carried. But I am sure you won't want to go there again, especially after last time LOL. However when we discussed evidence for a purported God recently I seem to remember you fell back on the the Argument from Popularity and the God of the Gaps, two forms of fallacy, so I can see why above you say now you 'don't assume evidence'.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 14, 2019 17:30:39 GMT
...and yet you do...ALL the time. That position is the substance of the God of the Gaps argument which you employ on here constantly and consistently.. ie 1. I have seen no evidence from science. 2. The earth exists so it must be God created. Your terrible mistake is to dismiss all negative proofs as if none are possible. Some are and some are not. I explained how it is the scope of a proof that makes it possible or not. Whether the proof is positive or negative is actually irrelevant. It is howeve r remains impossible to prove the absolute non-existence of a mythical being - which is the pertinent point here.
|
|
