You are entitled to your opinion even if it is wrong. As soon as you show humanity how to evidence their personal experiences I will evidence mine.
OK
Humans who talk to ghosts that have the ability to pass through walls and observe things there, then return and describe their observations to the human are invited to evidence their personal experiences in front of a panel of scientists and magicians with the aid of an opaque box, a 20-sided dice, and a device which may be used to roll the dice after a delay.
A portable light may be left in the box as well, if the spirits require it to see.
Ahh, but you now have to give evidence as to why it is wrong…
Our “opinions” are based upon outwardly verifiable evidence that everyone can take part in finding; yours is apparently based upon your perceptions alone.
We have asserted that perceptions can be mistaken (also based upon evidence - heck, just ask any magician). And at least some human experiences can be evidenced.
Reality does not alter to suit your fancy no matter how much you’d wish it so. To say, “science doesn’t know so it must be x” is an appeal to ignorance, not a valid argument.
A) No, it isn’t “common.” I own a bookstore and engage in conversation with many bright people, and I’ve never heard a claim like that.
B) Your claim was that 90% of people believe in spirits. Your cite says that 92% of Americans believe in God or a universal spirit. Two different things.
I’m sure if I took a poll at the church down the street, I’d determine that well over 90% of people polled believe in God. If, however, I asked if they believed in ghosts or spirits that could communicate with living people through the use of stuff like ouija boards, that number would plummet dramatically. If I did the poll at Stanford University, it would drop even farther.
But it’s really not relevant. What the majority believes isn’t necessarily what’s real.
As usual, you’ve repeatedly ignored all requests for evidence regarding the existence of these alleged spirits, aside from “I’ve seen them.” I’m sure I could pop some peyote and see spirits, too, but that doesn’t make them real.
The existence of spirits has never been proven in a controlled environment in a repeatable fashion. Ever.
lekatt can hardly be accused of hijacking a thread to project his unsupported misconceptions about science when the whole thread is devoted to making unscientific claims without evidence.
The link you gave was not an out-of-body experience as admitted by the “researchers.” Therefor it was not evidence of a personal experience.
Have you ever seen a patient near death in a hospital wearing virtual reality goggles. Now I really don’t care what science thinks any more than I do religion.
Um, once on an episode of Family Guy. Does that count?
That’s as valid as anything Lekatt has posted.
The link showed a real experiential phenomenon, long since accredited to the supernatural and/or paranormal, being reproduced repeatedly by researchers, thus suggesting that the mind can indeed be tricked.
Further, and quite disingenuously, you assert that the subjects’ (of this experiment) explanation of their personal experiences therein are less credible than your own, quite similar claims to us here.
Finally, you haven’t even come close to the well documented, repeatable evidence shown above in your own presentation of your experience here. Now, I don’t think anyone is questioning that you had “an experience” and it might have been quite impressive or traumatic or whatever to you; it is your interpretation of the causal component of that experience that I think you are mistaken about.
So I ask, what experiences have you had that makes you believe in spirits and why do you not think that these same couldn’t be to more natural causes?
Sorry. That would be a hijack of this thread. If you need to know what he thinks happened to him, wander back up to the post where he linked to his home web site and poke around on it.
Fair enough, I missed it. I apologize and retract as asked (must have gotten caught up in the moment. well, that, or I am just being lazy now).
Aww shoot. Reading that link just gives me more questions… thanks a lot :rolleyes:
So would you say the OP had left the building? I was kind of hoping that they’d give the name of the academic at the UK university who had observed testing and found it convincing.
Good reliable witnesses of paranormal demonstrations are so hard to find, and I thought we were on to something…
Bold mine
A ‘good’ witness of a true supernatural event in itself would be almost impossible, due to how supernatural events happen and how people who don’t believe in the supernatural try to force what happened into the natural (or man made), even if that means calling the witness mentally ill.
Once someone perceives a true supernatural event and then believes in the supernatural, people who don’t believe will almost always think the witness is not thinking correctly (or misinterpreting natural stuff), as to them supernatural can’t exist, so there is a automatic built in bias. If these witnesses are not thinking correctly then they can’t be a good witness.
So it is self fulfilling that you can’t have a good witness of a supernatural event because of the incorrect assumption that such a witness is by definition not a good witness.
Is the supposition here that people who believe that the ouija board or pendulum “works” believe that spirits are moving things directly?
I don’t know anyone who believes that. It is the ideomotor effect, or whatever: the spirits inspire or otherwise influence the users to move the physical objects in an effective way. (Or, in the case of the pendulum, it can be used in that way without requesting the guidance of a spirit.)
In New Age circles, it’s CW that ouija boards, for whatever reason, the vast majority of the time attract very low-grade entities and that their use cannot be recommended.
On the other hand spiritual people have been able to contact very high spirits through the board. Like Seth of Jane Roberts “Seth Books.” It is true beginners should have experienced help. Like any tool it must be used properly to achieve the desired result.
No one is arguing the supernatural cannot exist. But we do require evidence beyond anecdotes before we believe you. You demand blind faith in your demon world. That I will not do.
So, this Seth spirit was contacted via a Ouija board? (why would a spirit need to charge for their “teachings”?)
[not intended as hijack]
I searched and didn’t find the discussion on…
Did we cover the history of the (faked) spiritualist movement in the 1800’s and the resulting marketing of the current (alphanumeric) board? This would support the claim that these boards were made for entertainment purposes.
[/not intended as hijack]
lekatt challenged this term earlier, so at least one person does. Though it seems like we’re moving the goalposts we are still left with, “why doesn’t it work when people are blindfolded?”
And, lekatt; please answer as to why your personal experiential claims to us here are more credible than that of the researcher’s subjects.
It is well established that [healthy] people can misinterpret natural events and claim them to be supernatural (because they couldn’t find a cause or some other fallible reasoning). If a natural means can be discovered as the causal agent for a claimed supernatural event, it need not be considered supernatural.
I think most of us here just wonder why some jump right to the supernatural claims before investigating natural causes.
You keep making statements like this, like you were talking about something true and verifiable. When you talk about the differences between high and low spirits and how they work and who they communicate with, it’s like me discussing in great detail the mating habits of yetis.
FIRST, you need to offer some definitive, verifiable, repeatable proof that they even exist. Since people have claimed that ghosts exist for thousands of years and never managed to prove it, I’m not holding my breath.
THEN you can make up twaddle about different types of spirits and how they behave and what they think and present it to us as “fact.”
I recognize this. But it’s basically a fundamentally dangerous tool, whereas Tarot cards, in my experience are not (nor are commonly said to be). Thanks.
fap fap fap