do you believe in the supernatural / extraordinary?

[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."

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...

[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."

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...

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 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 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 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 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 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.