do you believe in the supernatural / extraordinary?

[chaotic.rune]

post your reasons here, and maybe an example of what you believe in...

me? yes. because i have seen some things happen in my life that are unexplainable by nature... and scientists still can't prove that because no one has yet... to... unlock... the potential... to do extraordinary and godly things... like ghosts and stuff. and, say, *cough* theabilitytocontrolessencesofearthitself *cough*
now then, how about you?

[Eris]

No. If super-natural things really did exist, they would by definition be natural. So the supernatural is by definition non-existent.

[Skylar1]

post your reasons here, and maybe an example of what you believe in...

me? yes. because i have seen some things happen in my life that are unexplainable by nature... and scientists still can't prove that because no one has yet... to... unlock... the potential... to do extraordinary and godly things... like ghosts and stuff. and, say, *cough* theabilitytocontrolessencesofearthitself *cough*
now then, how about you?

If one could "unlock" the secret as you put it, it would be done using the scientific method. So then it wouldn't be "supernatural" because anything that is discovered is done so through the use of science.

[Orenjia]

If ghosts believe in me i believe them too.But right now,no.I definetely believe in aliens though.The thinks that i believe in are too complicated for humans to understand yet.
http://www.recipeapart.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/cute-alien.jpg

[-GAZKUL-]

im not sure if i believe or not but if you do then you might find this (http://www.occultopedia.com/occult.htm) intresting

[LovePanda]

I can't say i believe in the supernatural. I'd like to but am not very good at the whole faith without proof thing.

I tend to believe in science and facts. It's just the way my brain is wired.

[Dr. Evil]

I believe in ligers. It's pretty much my favorite animal. It's like a lion and a tiger mixed... bred for its skills in magic.

lol Napoleon Dynamite references *knee-slapper*

[Eris]

I believe in ligers. It's pretty much my favorite animal. It's like a lion and a tiger mixed... bred for its skills in magic.

lol Napoleon Dynamite references *knee-slapper*

They're not supernatural at all, but perfectly natural hybrids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger).

[Dr. Evil]

They're not supernatural at all, but perfectly natural hybrids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger).

So did not get the joke -.-

[Miss Moonlight]

No, but my mind is not closed off to the possibility of new things I may not be aware of.

But as for ghosts/psychics/mediums/etc., I believe these things just exist in the power of everyone's individual mind. People usually underestimate the the power of the human mind. They shouldn't.

[Eris]

So did not get the joke -.-

There are more important things than jokes (http://xkcd.com/386/).

[Dr. Evil]

Love the site Eris. Thanks.

[Bulma1017]

For me well "Yes I do beleive for one reason, and that is because well....my grandmother is an Medium and my mother is half meduim and well I carried on those traits too....you guys might not beleive me or anything, but yes there are ghosts, poltergeists, demons, wondering souls and angles. Ever since I was 5 years old I could see, hear and talk to them all the time not knowing they were dead. I would have to say is the show Ghost Hunters most of it is real and some is just for show, sadly my mother and I as we watch that show only we can tell what is real and what is fake....but let me tell you it is something you shouldn't mess with whenever you use/play with the ouija board. yeah...just letting you all know....

[Eris]

For me well "Yes I do beleive for one reason, and that is because well....my grandmother is an Medium and my mother is half meduim and well I carried on those traits too....you guys might not beleive me or anything, but yes there are ghosts, poltergeists, demons, wondering souls and angles. Ever since I was 5 years old I could see, hear and talk to them all the time not knowing they were dead. I would have to say is the show Ghost Hunters most of it is real and some is just for show, sadly my mother and I as we watch that show only we can tell what is real and what is fake....but let me tell you it is something you shouldn't mess with whenever you use/play with the ouija board. yeah...just letting you all know....

Is there any particular reason you, or your family members, haven't collected the $1,000,000 Randi Prize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randi_prize#The_One_Million_Dollar_Paranormal_Chal lenge) yet? I mean, even if you don't personally want the money, you could still give them to a charity.

[KitKaty]

I do believe in the paranormal. All of my family members could see and feel the dead. They've also encountered what most refuse to believe. As for me, I have yet to see a spirit but I have felt them countlessly on the roads. Not to mention I've experienced some paranormal activity in my travels.

I also watch Ghost Hunters. I can pick out the fake and the reality. They're my favorite paranormal group because they try to debunk claims and use scientific research to prove that there are spiritual beings.

I know they are out there. Some are good, some are nasty, but most are just confused and wonder around aimlessly.

[Bulma1017]

Is there any particular reason you, or your family members, haven't collected the $1,000,000 Randi Prize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randi_prize#The_One_Million_Dollar_Paranormal_Chal lenge) yet? I mean, even if you don't personally want the money, you could still give them to a charity.


May I ask you, what are you talking about? I' ve never heard anything about this? And Plus why would my family or I would collect anything tlike that?

[Miss Moonlight]

May I ask you, what are you talking about? I' ve never heard anything about this? And Plus why would my family or I would collect anything tlike that?

You said your grandmother was a medium. Therefore, Randi of the James Randi Educational Foundation challenges people who claim to have paranormal powers to perform them in a closely controlled setting where no "funny business" can take place (like cheating), and then promises any person who can legitimately pull them off in that setting, one Million Dollars.

So far, no one has been able to prove such, so the "One Million Dollars" remains unclaimed. Silvia Browne, a very popular Psychic was proposed this exact challenge and turned it down for obvious reasons, that well ... she has no actual powers (unless they be the powers of persuasion, to rid people of their money.)

The point of the challenge is that Randi knows this isn't possible, and he knows people will never claim the prize (for lulz, search "James Hydrick" on youtube and find the video where he tries to prove he has teh powers on a show called "That's Incredible!" with Randi also.)

[Bulma1017]

You said your grandmother was a medium. Therefore, Randi of the James Randi Educational Foundation challenges people who claim to have paranormal powers to perform them in a closely controlled setting where no "funny business" can take place (like cheating), and then promises any person who can legitimately pull them off, one Million Dollars.

So far, no one has been able to prove that they do, so the "One Million Dollars" remains unclaimed. Silvia Browne, a very popular Psychic was proposed this exact challenge and turned it down. The point is that Randi knows this isn't possible, and he knows people will never claim the prize (for lulz, search "James Hydrick" on youtube and find the video where he tries to prove he has teh powers on a show with Randi also.)

For obvious reasons that well ... she has no powers, unless they be the powers of persuasion, to rid people of their money in lieu of "predictions".


Wait who is that??
Listen I don't announce it like "I can see everything and I can predict everything!!" No yeah I can see, hear and talk to them but that's it. people ask if they excist or if I believe in them and I answer the truth and to be honest with you my family and I don't do such things like that at all. Whatever those people do that's their thing. Plus I really don't care or pay attention to those things anyway.

[Bulma1017]

See I never should have put down anything, I was contemplating whether I should or not. So now people will hate and question everthing I do now.............great............................. ...............

[Eris]

See I never should have put down anything, I was contemplating whether I should or not. So now people will hate and question everthing I do now.............great............................. ...............

How so? There's no hating. Just wondering why you haven't collected your $1,000,000 yet.

[Bulma1017]

How so? There's no hating. Just wondering why you haven't collected your $1,000,000 yet.

Why must you intimidate?

[Miss Moonlight]

Why must you intimidate?

Sorry for the double post, don't know how that happened ...

Anyway, there is no "intimidation" here, just healthy skepticism.

[Eris]

Why must you intimidate?

How am I intimidating you? It's a perfectly legit question. There's a cool $1,000,000 waiting for less than a day's work. It doesn't require breaking any laws, and it's not some morally reprehensible act your consciousness will suffer from. Easiest money you'll ever make.

I am just wondering the motivation behind not collecting this large sum of near-effortless money. Heck, collecting them would make medial powers legitimate, and hecklers and skeptics would be forced to shut up and get a job all round the world.

[Bulma1017]

I have no need for it.

[wolfgirl90]

How so? There's no hating. Just wondering why you haven't collected your $1,000,000 yet.

(Alright, everyone: go ahead and bad rep me as I know that its going to happen).

It may not have been hate, Eris, however, while I usually do not have a problem with mods, would you did was borderline disrespectful. While it may be "healthy skepticism" to ask about that, that still does not make it right to ask, especially not in the way you did. Despite what James Randi says, he does not want to investigate the occult or the paranormal; he wants to prove that it doesn't exist, that its hogwash, and that it is stupid to believe in such things. He basically wants to go: "Come on. Prove to me that you can do this, that what you are saying is true. What, you can't do it? You don't want to? Is it because its not real? That you are delusional? That you are lying to others and yourself?" You were doing the exact same thing: "Why haven't you collected your million dollars yet? If what you say is true, you should collect the money." That was not just skeptism; that was just being insensitive and rude.

I believe you asked me the same question before because of the fact that I practice Witchcraft. Here's my answer as it was before: I don't want to claim the prize because that would be admitting that my practice is paranormal; I don't consider it as such. I also find James Randi to be a hard-head and just a bit of an idiot. He really only wants to show people how stupid they are, not understand. So, the reason why I don't dare try and collect his prize is because there is no point in talking to someone who does not (and does not want to) understand. It would be as futile as discussing religion with Richard Dawkins. I am not even going to bother.


See I never should have put down anything, I was contemplating whether I should or not. So now people will hate and question everthing I do now.............great............................. ...............

This may sound bad, but unfortunately, you are right. I have been here long enough to know that under most circumstances, one's beliefs should be kept to themselves because most of the people on this site are atheist. So unfortunately, there is a bias. So advice: just roll your eyes at them the way they do to you because trying to change to talk about it, trying to convince them of anything is not going to work.:closedeye

[Eris]

It may not have been hate, Eris, however, while I usually do not have a problem with mods, would you did was borderline disrespectful. While it may be "healthy skepticism" to ask about that, that still does not make it right to ask, especially not in the way you did. Despite what James Randi says, he does not want to investigate the occult or the paranormal; he wants to prove that it doesn't exist, that its hogwash, and that it is stupid to believe in such things. He basically wants to go: "Come on. Prove to me that you can do this, that what you are saying is true. What, you can't do it? You don't want to? Is it because its not real? That you are delusional? That you are lying to others and yourself?" You were doing the exact same thing: "Why haven't you collected your million dollars yet? If what you say is true, you should collect the money." That was not just skeptism; that was just being insensitive and rude.


That is not being rude, it is being skeptical. If a statement is true, it must be verifiable. Skepticism, at the core, is not accepting statements without verification. Especially so bold statements of powers which nobody has been able to demonstrate.

If someone claims to be able to fly or shoot lasers out of their eyes, is it rude and insensitive to ask them to verify this feat? Why should supernatural abilities be treated differently?

[Mr. Panda]

If someone claims to be able to fly or shoot lasers out of their eyes, is it rude and insensitive to ask them to verify this feat? Why should supernatural abilities be treated differently?

There is however a difference in the way of asking, of course.

One could ask: "Hey, you can shoot lasers out of your eyes? No way! Prove it!"

Or, one could ask: "Man you're an effing liar. There's no way you can do it. Prove it, wuss. Let's see you do it. Come on. COME ON."

[Miss Moonlight]

There is however a difference in the way of asking, of course.

One could ask: "Hey, you can shoot lasers out of your eyes? No way! Prove it!"

Or, one could ask: "Man you're an effing liar. There's no way you can do it. Prove it, wuss. Let's see you do it. Come on. COME ON."
Well, asking a question, and calling someone names for their beliefs are two different things. I haven't seen anyone calling each other names here. Sarcasm is being used, but I don't really see it as being rude.

[Mr. Panda]

Well, asking a question, and calling someone names for their beliefs are two different things. I haven't seen anyone calling each other names here. Sarcasm is being used, but I don't really see it as being rude.

True, true.

[poshyterra]

Yes I believe in ghosts, spirits, demons, etc. I've senn ghosts before (No, I am not a medium so don't ask why I haven't collected my check yet). It's never been anything serious and the ghosts didn't try to kill me or threaten me. They just stared at me and left.

[*Tsuki*]

Honestly, the moment I saw this thread, I knew there would be somewhat of a conflict. I've seen people on this site who are extremely religious, and others who base everything off of science and cold, hard facts.

To answer your question, I believe it can't be truly proven nor proven wrong.
There will always be those who refuse to believe, even if solid proof was given to them. That's the thing, though. From what I've seen, people can't completely prove something like this to be true or false.
No one but those who "see" will be able to know if ghosts/demons/spirits/etc. exist. We won't know what happens after death until we die, which I can say I've never done.

In my family, I have my father who believes ghosts and spirits to be completely fake and made up.
On the other hand, my mother claims to see them all the time - whether it be shadows, smells, voices, or even her dead mother coming to visit. Still, to this day, she swears that her mother picked me up and carried me down the hallway as she was falling asleep (this was when I was a baby) in the rocking chair she used to own.

Really, though, I can't say either way. I believe my mom, in a sense, but seeing as nothing like this has really happened to me, I can't say I completely understand. If anything, the closest most people will come is in their dreams.
Though, of course, even then it can be said both ways.

[-Batman-]

I have no need for it.

...I'll take it...

[wolfgirl90]

That is not being rude, it is being skeptical. If a statement is true, it must be verifiable. Skepticism, at the core, is not accepting statements without verification. Especially so bold statements of powers which nobody has been able to demonstrate.

If someone claims to be able to fly or shoot lasers out of their eyes, is it rude and insensitive to ask them to verify this feat? Why should supernatural abilities be treated differently?

You are not helping, Eris. First, I don't compare my religion with the ability to shoot lasers out of my eyes or fly; some people think so, I don't (I believe you missed my point about "respect"). If you do, that's your personal opinion, however, no matter your skepticism, one doesn't say things like that without it being rude. "I wasn't being rude, I was just questioning your beliefs and wondering why you can't 'prove' them to me.":rolleyes:

I understand your and everyone's skepticism, really I do, but I will never understand why someone can give praises to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a Jedi, the Fonz, The Great Pumpkin and Raptor Jesus, as funny as these are, while those who just mention a certain belief are glared at.

Second, claims of shooting lasers or flying are things that are just abilities. However, for people like mediums and Witches, is not an "ability" but a religion, a part of their personal beliefs. If you want me to "verify" my religion (whatever that means to you), I don't know how I would do that, especially since you have already made up your mind about it. Like I said before, I am not even going to bother to change your mind since yours is already made up.

How can one "prove" that they can communicate with spirits if you not only don't believe that they can, but you also don't believe in the things that they are talking to? You would have been better of asking about it, figuring out what they believe and why. As for me, I have only made the claim that I practice Witchcraft; the only claim that can be proven is that I practice it. What else is there, other than your assumptions of what "Witchcraft" is?

But anyway, I think we are off-topic just a bit...:closedeye

[The Rebel]

Wow, talk about alot of "off-topic" B.S. Honestly, no wonder I haven't been on here much. The "quality" of the staff has gone downhill. You claimed being "skeptical", and I would have believed it if you hadn't continued to push the issue with the couple of additional posts "badgering" her about it.
Plain and simple, there's alot of things we STILL don't understand. There's some things we SHOULDN'T understand, and there are things that are plain obvious. As mentioned before by someone, you have people who are closed-minded, some not so closed-minded, and some that are open-minded. And the difference between these states are VAST. As many already know, we are ALL different in our own ways. And so in many respects, none of us will truely see eye to eye on EVERYTHING. But still, that doesn't mean there should be so much back and forth on what is a simple question.
NOW, I've seen my fair share of,,, kaka. And I'll be honest, I believe to some extent. I believe, there might be some existance after death, what kind I don't know. I believe, we are not alone in this universe. To think so is conceded, which is human nature. If "mediums" are real, they are few, and severely outnumbers by frauds and fakes. But then again, I don't know EVERYONE on this planet personally so I can't say I haven't met one, can I?
Everyone seems to forget the fact that the human mind is a fragile and complex thing. Honestly, it's like "what is the truth"? Is truth a tangible thing? No, it's an ideal. So what is truth for one may not be truth for all. A man can be telling the truth if it's what we believes to be the truth.

[RaNdOmNaMe]

i do believe in them.
DID U PEOPLE KNO THAT CLOUDS ARE ACTULLY UNICORNS IN DISGUISE IN THE SKIES??? =D

[Mr. Panda]

i do believe in them.
DID U PEOPLE KNO THAT CLOUDS ARE ACTULLY UNICORNS IN DISGUISE IN THE SKIES??? =D


If you're trying to lighten the mood here, you're not helping, lol. XD;

But uhm. I do believe in them, but not as in: "OOOHHH SHIZZLE I THINK I SAW A GHOST THERE!..." but more like: "Spirits? Sure. Somewhere. I guess."

[Simon Phoenix]

humans are blinded by the arrogance of them being the solo intelligence, and every couple of hundred years there minds are rocked i.e. finding out the earth isn't flat or that the earth isn't at the center of the universe or evolution.

[The Rebel]

True, true. But there are those who still think the Earth is flat. Some people just ignant.

[Skylar1]

humans are blinded by the arrogance of them being the solo intelligence, and every couple of hundred years there minds are rocked i.e. finding out the earth isn't flat or that the earth isn't at the center of the universe or evolution.

Excately. A good scientist never discount the existance of something, only says that something is "inmesureable and therefore can not be proven until it is".

This is why the word "Theory" exists. Anyone can make a theory about anything, but you must back up your theory with mesureable data using the scientific method, and from that, the theory with the most "fact-based data" wins.

When it comes to fact or fiction, it is numbers that reign supreme

[Eris]

Excately. A good scientist never discount the existance of something, only says that something is "inmesureable and therefore can not be proven until it is".

This is why the word "Theory" exists. Anyone can make a theory about anything, but you must back up your theory with mesureable data using the scientific method, and from that, the theory with the most "fact-based data" wins.

When it comes to fact or fiction, it is numbers that reign supreme

That is not at all what "theory" means in science. A scientific theory is about as solid as things get as far as science is concerned.

The colloquial meaning of "theory", on the other hand is what scientists call a hypothesis.

[IchigoXx]

I do beleve in the supernatural such as
-fairys
-ghosts
-spirits
-auras
ect
i am wiccan so i can do alot of supernatural things and i can see ghosts and other things :)

[Eris]

You are not helping, Eris. First, I don't compare my religion with the ability to shoot lasers out of my eyes or fly; some people think so, I don't (I believe you missed my point about "respect"). If you do, that's your personal opinion, however, no matter your skepticism, one doesn't say things like that without it being rude. "I wasn't being rude, I was just questioning your beliefs and wondering why you can't 'prove' them to me.":rolleyes:

I understand your and everyone's skepticism, really I do, but I will never understand why someone can give praises to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a Jedi, the Fonz, The Great Pumpkin and Raptor Jesus, as funny as these are, while those who just mention a certain belief are glared at.

Second, claims of shooting lasers or flying are things that are just abilities. However, for people like mediums and Witches, is not an "ability" but a religion, a part of their personal beliefs. If you want me to "verify" my religion (whatever that means to you), I don't know how I would do that, especially since you have already made up your mind about it. Like I said before, I am not even going to bother to change your mind since yours is already made up.

How can one "prove" that they can communicate with spirits if you not only don't believe that they can, but you also don't believe in the things that they are talking to? You would have been better of asking about it, figuring out what they believe and why. As for me, I have only made the claim that I practice Witchcraft; the only claim that can be proven is that I practice it. What else is there, other than your assumptions of what "Witchcraft" is?

But anyway, I think we are off-topic just a bit...:closedeye

The whole you practicing witchcraft is a red herring so I'm not going to engage that.

The existence of spirits / ghosts / whatever is indeed a dogmatic (=religious) matter that is neither verifiable nor unverifiable (as is all religion), and not really what I'm subjecting to skepticism. People believe in a lot of different things, and really, my opinion on that is whatever rocks your boat.

But when these supposed ghosts interface with the verifiable world (i.e. the part of the world that everyone, regardless of faith, can agree on exists), it is no longer religion, but something that in order to draw a distinct line between the unverifiable worlds and the verifiable world must be poked and prodded to reveal it's true nature.


humans are blinded by the arrogance of them being the solo intelligence, and every couple of hundred years there minds are rocked i.e. finding out the earth isn't flat or that the earth isn't at the center of the universe or evolution.

This is an argument flawed by the notion that you are either right or wrong. There are degrees of correctness. Every time our world view has changed, it has become more correct. While it is more accurate to call the earth round, it is a correct observation that locally, it is flat. So it isn't so much that we've been proven 100% wrong time and time again, but that we've been proven 100% wrong, then 75% wrong, then 50% wrong, etc. There is a great essay on this by Isaac Asimov called The Relativity of Wrong (http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm) you might want to read.

[Alcmaeonid]

Humans are prone to hallucinations and prone to seeing actors where none exist.



It may not have been hate, Eris, however, while I usually do not have a problem with mods, would you did was borderline disrespectful. While it may be "healthy skepticism" to ask about that, that still does not make it right to ask, especially not in the way you did.

I wonder if you had felt the same way if this discussion had been about someone's political views. Religious/spiritual beliefs should not be granted special status and exemption from critical inquiry, nor should they be shielded from satire. To be honest, the comments in question did not even border on the latter, so I find your reply to be a simultaneously very telling and typical overreaction.

[Miss Moonlight]

I don't know why some people are so offended that others are skeptical.

I also don't usually look down on/insult others for their own beliefs (depends on what it is), but that doesn't mean I always agree with them, or that others have to.

I don't see any mud-slinging here, just questioning. If you are going to present your beliefs or opinions on a public forum where others can also comment on them, then you really need to be able to take a certain amount of criticism, and not expect everyone to just blindly agree with you.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

I don't know why some people are so offended that others are skeptical.

I also don't usually look down on/insult others for their own beliefs (depends on what it is), but that doesn't mean I always agree with them, or that others have to.

I don't see any mud-slinging here, just questioning. If you are going to present your beliefs or opinions on a public forum where others can also comment on them, then you really need to be able to take a certain amount of criticism, and not expect everyone to just blindly agree with you.

Because woo (http://www.skepdic.com/woowoo.html) is like mushrooms, it grows best is moist, dark places. People don't like that their unique-snowflake status can be revoked by logic and reason.

[Mr. Panda]

Because woo (http://www.skepdic.com/woowoo.html) is like mushrooms, it grows best is moist, dark places. People don't like that their unique-snowflake status can be revoked by logic and reason.

It's not because someone believes in something he/she feels threathened by someone because he/she thinks they're attacking her/his 'unique-snowflake status'.

It's human nature to give everything a certain meaning. Think about it. Ever since you were young you wanted to know 'why' this happened, or 'why' that happened. You got answers and therefor you believe for everything is a logical explanation.
An example is, they used to believe the Earth was the center of the universe. Why? They had the 'why' question and they sought to answer it, one way or another. They saw the sun rise from the East and set in the West, so they figured the Sun must've gone in loops around the Earth, so as a logical explanation they said it had to be that the Earth was the center. If you give this explanation to someone now they'd laugh at you and declare you crazy.

Heidegger, a famous philosopher used to say that because men has decided to give everything meaning, there is little room for the "what if?" Science, for example is something that is very correct because it can be proven, but how many times in history have we rewritten formula's, countered theories with other theories, came up with new ones, neglected old ones etc?

Same are with the things that can't be explained. Ask yourself, 'what' is life? There are million explanations attached to it. One says: "I live, therefore I am," or the other says: "I dunno. Life is enjoying it?"
There is no correct answer to it because it's so versatile. Who can tell which one is correct and which one's not?

Same with the ones here who believe in the supernatural. Why not? They want to give their own personal 'logical' explanation to their own speculation, which resulted into some thinking (or, actually being able to, I don't know), they can talk to spirits, can see spirits and having them effectively believe in spirits.

So to say "People don't like that their unique-snowflake status can be revoked by logic and reason," is something that in turn may be proven to be wrong in the end.

Who knows? Perhaps we'll go à la Final Fantasy, Spirits within and we'll get swarmed by spirits?

[Eris]

Science, for example is something that is very correct because it can be proven, but how many times in history have we rewritten formula's, countered theories with other theories, came up with new ones, neglected old ones etc?


This horribly broken argument just doesn't want to die! I quote myself, just a couple of posts ago, in fact.

There are degrees of correctness. Every time our world view has changed, it has become more correct. While it is more accurate to call the earth round, it is a correct observation that locally, it is flat. So it isn't so much that we've been proven 100% wrong time and time again, but that we've been proven 100% wrong, then 75% wrong, then 50% wrong, etc. There is a great essay on this by Isaac Asimov called The Relativity of Wrong (http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm) you might want to read.

In essence, if science is wrong now, it is wrong about something perhaps ontologically significant enough to appear revolutionary when we learn about it, but in terms of actual measurable consequences, near-immeasurably insignificant.

[Mr. Panda]

This horribly broken argument just doesn't want to die! I quote myself, just a couple of posts ago, in fact.

There are degrees of correctness. Every time our world view has changed, it has become more correct. While it is more accurate to call the earth round, it is a correct observation that locally, it is flat. So it isn't so much that we've been proven 100% wrong time and time again, but that we've been proven 100% wrong, then 75% wrong, then 50% wrong, etc. There is a great essay on this by Isaac Asimov called The Relativity of Wrong (http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm) you might want to read.

I took your comment into account. Don't worry. I'll quote myself once more and hopefully you will get the message I was trying to portray:



Heidegger, a famous philosopher used to say that because men has decided to give everything meaning, there is little room for the "what if?" Science, for example is something that is very correct because it can be proven, but how many times in history have we rewritten formula's, countered theories with other theories, came up with new ones, neglected old ones etc?


I was trying to imply that we're not always correct. If that were the case (which, it will never be, because randomly throwing 'facts' in a discussion is stupid) I would've just blatantly written: "Sorry, we've been wrong SO many times in history."
By saying that we keep coming up with new theories, countered old ones with new ones or even neglecting old ones I was trying to say that even though we are correct, it doesn't always mean we're 100% correct like you were saying.

That's all, really.

[~Roxas~]

I belive in ghosts...
Why you might ask well somtimes I keep seeing them at really random times like when I come out of the shower...
Well for a more better example once I slept over at my cousins house and at midnight when most people were asleep and it was really dark we went ghost hunting in the basement. We put a tape recorder on a chair in the basement then we started to explore. We found nothing and heard nothing so we just got the tape recorder and went to bed. The next day when we played the recorder their was a high pitched scream in the backround of our voices that is not a natural human scream...
Well I just belive in them and nothing will change that.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

It's not because someone believes in something he/she feels threathened by someone because he/she thinks they're attacking her/his 'unique-snowflake status'. I disagree. Psychology shows people in general want to be correct more then they want to be corrected, and will go through torturous logic to think themselves the former if necessary.


It's human nature to give everything a certain meaning. Think about it. Ever since you were young you wanted to know 'why' this happened, or 'why' that happened. You got answers and therefor you believe for everything is a logical explanation.
An example is, they used to believe the Earth was the center of the universe. Why? They had the 'why' question and they sought to answer it, one way or another. They saw the sun rise from the East and set in the West, so they figured the Sun must've gone in loops around the Earth, so as a logical explanation they said it had to be that the Earth was the center. If you give this explanation to someone now they'd laugh at you and declare you crazy. Because almost no one exercised sufficient skepticism versus what they were taught by Christianity. There was evidence that the earth revolved around the sun, people ignored it because it didn't agree with what they believed.


Heidegger, a famous philosopher used to say that because men has decided to give everything meaning, there is little room for the "what if?"Aristotle, a famous philosopher used to say that heavenly bodies were made up of the 5th element, aether. The opinions of famous philosophers are often wrong and more often only mentioned when one needs an argument by authority. I like how you mentioned he was famous.


Science, for example is something that is very correct because it can be proven, but how many times in history have we rewritten formula's, countered theories with other theories, came up with new ones, neglected old ones etc? All very well and good, but in this case where's the evidence? Science can be wrong because people can be wrong, but science is still the only way to establish what is and isn't true. Provide me a way to establish the validity of claims that doesn't sound exactly like the scientific method and I'll give you a cookie.


Same are with the things that can't be explained. Ask yourself, 'what' is life? There are million explanations attached to it. One says: "I live, therefore I am," or the other says: "I dunno. Life is enjoying it?"
There is no correct answer to it because it's so versatile. Who can tell which one is correct and which one's not?I'm talking things falsifiable and you are talking philosophy, which is by definition subjective. Let's get back on topic.


Same with the ones here who believe in the supernatural. Why not? They want to give their own personal 'logical' explanation to their own speculation, which resulted into some thinking (or, actually being able to, I don't know), they can talk to spirits, can see spirits and having them effectively believe in spirits.They, like everyone else, are wrong unless they can prove themselves right. And, so far they have proven themselves wrong.

So to say "People don't like that their unique-snowflake status can be revoked by logic and reason," is something that in turn may be proven to be wrong in the end.It's right insofar as it's a blanket statement and has been found to be overwhelmingly right in the past in the vast majority of cases involoving True Believers and not con-men. People think knowledge gives them power, and they are correct. But false-knowlege only gives them power as long as they can convince themselves and others it is correct. Skepticism subjects knowledge and false-knowledge to scrutiny.


Who knows? Perhaps we'll go à la Final Fantasy, Spirits within and we'll get swarmed by spirits?
And maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster will come to earth and declare All-You-Can-Eat Pasta Wendsdays.

[The Butcher]

Believe in things like Ghosts,Bigfoot,Lochness Monster,Demons etc.?No I do not.

I do believe there are to be believed extinct Marine Animals in the Mariana Trench though.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

I do believe there are extinct Marine Animals in the Mariana Trench though.

If they are extinct, they aren't living anywhere by definition.

[narunaru]

This may sound bad, but unfortunately, you are right. I have been here long enough to know that under most circumstances, one's beliefs should be kept to themselves because most of the people on this site are atheist. So unfortunately, there is a bias. So advice: just roll your eyes at them the way they do to you because trying to change to talk about it, trying to convince them of anything is not going to work.:closedeye

So you're saying my being atheist automatically makes me closed-minded? I'm as atheist as one can be, yet I believe you have every right to practice what you will, how you will.

And what makes you think I don't fall under just as much criticism as you do? People consider me arrogant, and automatically think that just because I don't believe in God, that automatically means I'm satanist (including my family, believe it or not). In fact, it seems to be common practice to believe that atheist is equivalent to satanist. So please, just because you receive flack for your beliefs, don't dump it off on someone else's. Don't use the stereotypes you condemn.

That being said, it's hard not to believe in the supernatural, these days. We're making discoveries all over the place about ourselves as a race(human, that is), and who's to say what we believe is supernatural isn't just commonplace somewhere else out there in our infinite universe?

[Mr. Panda]

Because almost no one exercised sufficient skepticism versus what they were taught by Christianity. There was evidence that the earth revolved around the sun, people ignored it because it didn't agree with what they believed.

Ah, exactly. Because people gave meaning to whatever they wanted to believe, whether it was wrong or right. That's exactly my point.

It is the exact same thing with the supernatural here. If I'm here to tell you that they do exist and I'd tell you I really can see them, even though you believe they are not because there is no solid evidence, you'd declare me crazy, or something alike. But then the situation has just been reversed. People used to believe in God because Christianity told them to, they gave a certain meaning to whatever they saw on the world. What they saw back then as 'proof that the planet wasn't the center of the universe,' is the same as now with the people who believe in ghosts and the alike. Although there is no actual proof, people want to believe they exist for their own personal reasons. Is that wrong?


Aristotle, a famous philosopher used to say that heavenly bodies were made up of the 5th element, aether. The opinions of famous philosophers are often wrong and more often only mentioned when one needs an argument by authority. I like how you mentioned he was famous.

Yes, he was famous. Perhaps not as famous as Aristotle, or Confusius, but he was one of the philosophers who brought insight to the technique-philopsphy which in result has played a big role in how, for example, architects look at a buildings, expanding their horizon.

I didn't use him to 'gain authority in this conversation,'. I was simply implying that people want to give meaning to things. This is true, isn't it? You want to know how your computer worked when you first got it. You then gave meaning to that little button which would be known as the start-button. No other button on that computer would have the meaning of "this button will start my computer,".

I was then simply referring to the fact that people who believe in the supernatural want to give meaning to whatever they could hear, see, feel and whatnot. There's no need to actually 'prove' anything is there, as long as it's logical to them and they can give it a certain meaning so it makes 'sense' to them.

I'm not rooting for either side. It's clear we have a side of "I believe in ghosts," and a "proof, please, otherwise it's fake," side. I'm neither. I'm simply implying that 'why' you guys believe whatever you're believing.

[Alcmaeonid]

Although there is no actual proof, people want to believe they exist for their own personal reasons. Is that wrong?

You'll have to excuse me if I don't find self-delusion to be a particularly commendable virtue.




I didn't use him to 'gain authority in this conversation,'. I was simply implying that people want to give meaning to things. This is true, isn't it? You want to know how your computer worked when you first got it. You then gave meaning to that little button which would be known as the start-button. No other button on that computer would have the meaning of "this button will start my computer,".

Yes, as I pointed out earlier, people have a seemingly endless need and capacity for finding causality and conscious agents where none exist. This was particularly prevalent in polytheistic religions where pretty much every phenomenon of nature had its own god to take care of the processes. However, civilization has reached a point where we now have more sophisticated ways of thinking about things and finding out how they actually function, rather than grasping for deus ex machina when we reach the nearest mental roadblock.



I was then simply referring to the fact that people who believe in the supernatural want to give meaning to whatever they could hear, see, feel and whatnot. There's no need to actually 'prove' anything is there, as long as it's logical to them and they can give it a certain meaning so it makes 'sense' to them.

I'm sorry, but you do not get to have your own reality. If you make public statements about what your convictions are, you should be prepared to have them challenged; otherwise you should have kept them to yourself.

[Mr. Panda]

I'm sorry, but you do not get to have your own reality. If you make public statements about what your convictions are, you should be prepared to have them challenged; otherwise you should have kept them to yourself.

Although I agree, there is still a difference between 'challenging' someone's believes and blatantly saying you don't believe it unless it has some proof.

Then again, this is getting a bit out of hand. I apologize to the mods for going off-topic.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

Ah, exactly. Because people gave meaning to whatever they wanted to believe, whether it was wrong or right. That's exactly my point.

It is the exact same thing with the supernatural here. If I'm here to tell you that they do exist and I'd tell you I really can see them, even though you believe they are not because there is no solid evidence, you'd declare me crazy, or something alike. But then the situation has just been reversed. People used to believe in God because Christianity told them to, they gave a certain meaning to whatever they saw on the world. What they saw back then as 'proof that the planet wasn't the center of the universe,' is the same as now with the people who believe in ghosts and the alike. Although there is no actual proof, people want to believe they exist for their own personal reasons. Is that wrong?Philisophically, I'd say that it isn't. I couldn't care less what stupid things people believe in fundamentally. But morally I'd like to do my small part to insure that rationalism continues to be propagated, and part of that is not respecting people who think they are vampires, can talk to the dead, or can bend spoons with their mind unless they can back their woo with hard, objective facts. I think self-delusion is a character flaw.


Yes, he was famous. Perhaps not as famous as Aristotle, or Confusius, but he was one of the philosophers who brought insight to the technique-philopsphy which in result has played a big role in how, for example, architects look at a buildings, expanding their horizon.

I didn't use him to 'gain authority in this conversation,'. I was simply implying that people want to give meaning to things. This is true, isn't it? You want to know how your computer worked when you first got it. You then gave meaning to that little button which would be known as the start-button. No other button on that computer would have the meaning of "this button will start my computer,".
The large difference between myself and woo-true believers are that when I wanted to learn how a computer worked I read books and learned BASIC. I didn't put "2 and 2" together and started burning incense to please the Great Computer Goblin.


I was then simply referring to the fact that people who believe in the supernatural want to give meaning to whatever they could hear, see, feel and whatnot. There's no need to actually 'prove' anything is there, as long as it's logical to them and they can give it a certain meaning so it makes 'sense' to them. There is a need for woo true believers to provide proof for their woo if they want any respect for their beliefs. They are not owed any respect simply because they have beliefs, any moron can have a belief- it's not that hard.


Although I agree, there is still a difference between 'challenging' someone's believes and blatantly saying you don't believe it unless it has some proof.
The only difference between those two views is that the former gives the believer more respect then they deserve. In real life, woo kills millions of people a year by encouraging people to, for example, quit chemotherapy to try taking some guys secret mix of herbs (mostly oregano) to cure their cancer, or maybe instead try homeopathy (http://www.skepdic.com/homeo.html) to cure their cancer by taking one part cancer-causing agent to 1 million parts water. Now, you might say that mediums are small potatoes compared to stuff like that and you'd be right. However, the problem isn't the existence of people that have unfounded beliefs, it's that society as a whole doesn't tell woo true-believers to shut up and return to their holes anywhere near enough, and thus woo propagates among the gullible.

[RaNdOmNaMe]

If you're trying to lighten the mood here, you're not helping, lol. XD;

But uhm. I do believe in them, but not as in: "OOOHHH SHIZZLE I THINK I SAW A GHOST THERE!..." but more like: "Spirits? Sure. Somewhere. I guess."

haha srry
and ya thats pretty much mee too XD cuz i kno for sure htat htey do exist somewhere

[Rei]

If you're trying to lighten the mood here, you're not helping, lol. XD;

But uhm. I do believe in them, but not as in: "OOOHHH SHIZZLE I THINK I SAW A GHOST THERE!..." but more like: "Spirits? Sure. Somewhere. I guess."


I believe what I see. And yes, I have seen ghosts before. Now people will think I'm whacko.

[Forgotten Show]

I was reading through this trying to think of something witty to add about reading comprehension, but MP2k and Alcmaeonid have this one in the bag. Well done gents. There are several statements here that should be required reading.


Bad Memory

[Wio]

I'm not sure why people feel a need to be skeptical about things that don't affect them. To me, the Eris-Bulma thing looked like an unabridged form of "tits or get out"

Hell, we accept things as true with out inadequate proof all the time--even in cases where the validity will actually affect our lives somewhat. Many global warming believers are convinced simply by watching a polar bear drift away on an iceberg.

Ahmadinejad could probably hold a $1,000,000 "Prove the Holocaust" contest and never be convinced. When you're dead set on some idea you can easily throw out evidence as a coincidence or a lie.

[Eris]

I'm not sure why people feel a need to be skeptical about things that don't affect them.

Because superstition is harmful to society.


Hell, we accept things as true with out inadequate proof all the time--even in cases where the validity will actually affect our lives somewhat. Many global warming believers are convinced simply by watching a polar bear drift away on an iceberg.

One can find unsubstantial "evidence" for basically anything (regardless of whether it's true or not). Your point being?


Ahmadinejad could probably hold a $1,000,000 "Prove the Holocaust" contest and never be convinced. When you're dead set on some idea you can easily throw out evidence as a coincidence or a lie.

It would be pretty easy to corroborate the holocaust. It's very hard to fake a 70 year old tattoo.

[Forgotten Show]

Ahmadinejad could probably hold a $1,000,000 "Prove the Holocaust" contest and never be convinced. When you're dead set on some idea you can easily throw out evidence as a coincidence or a lie.

There is a difference between convincing/persuading someone and demonstrating something. Whether or not that fool believes the Holocaust happened, it can be demonstrated to have happened. The Randi prize isn't about convincing or persuading, but about demonstrating. It's about saying something that too often people don't: "Show me."


Bad Memory