-- Posted by Emilybird at 7:07 pm on July 8, 2009 some people think theres mystery in this world that is supposed to be left alone. and they embrace it and look for it. paranormal activity. spirits that haunt certain grounds or homes or buildings with much history. ppl that never made it to the after life. or wherever it is after death. some ppl take a look at it scientifically. some are in the middle and only believe to an extent and Maybe would admit it. and some just close themselves out even to the idea. where do you stand? do YOU believe? -- Posted by emo asian girl at 7:07 pm on July 8, 2009 i BELIEVE! -- Posted by felixbags at 7:08 pm on July 8, 2009 i believe -- Posted by BehindBars at 7:09 pm on July 8, 2009 I did, until I found out taps were faking everything... =\ I'm a non believer again. -- Posted by IGotAddicted at 7:09 pm on July 8, 2009 no -- Posted by Miss Vanity at 7:09 pm on July 8, 2009 No. -- Posted by nzdude at 7:11 pm on July 8, 2009 usually it depends -- Posted by MushroomSatsujin at 7:12 pm on July 8, 2009 Ive had encounters with things I can not explain. Ill leave it at that -- Posted by RayOrama at 7:16 pm on July 8, 2009 Human beings are energy and energy can't be created or destroyed, so I think that once people die their energy transforms into something else. I don't know if the energy is self-aware but it's a fact that it's around. In that sense I tend to believe. -- Posted by Event Horizon at 9:08 pm on July 8, 2009 Eh. I believe there are things that we know jack shit about out there. There are probably phenomena here on Earth that, while seemingly paranormal, are really just as yet unknown and quite natural--albeit uncommon. Ghosts and stuff though...I don't really think so. But hey, what do I know? -- Posted by Event Horizon at 9:10 pm on July 8, 2009 Quote: from RayOrama at 10:16 pm on July 8, 2009 Human beings are energy and energy can't be created or destroyed, so I think that once people die their energy transforms into something else. I don't know if the energy is self-aware but it's a fact that it's around. In that sense I tend to believe. But it can easily be put to other use...We are energy only insofar as we are matter and electricity and all that. We don't have little chasms of plasma floating in our bodies or anything. -- Posted by tell me again at 6:46 am on July 9, 2009 Yes. I don't like to divorce it from the "normal" though. And I don't believe most of what's out there about this subject because there's not a lot of unity and everyone's arguing for their own theories, usually in incredibly surreal ways. I don't adhere to that, but I don't have a cohesive paradigm of my own.   -- Posted by DonnieDarkko at 7:11 am on July 9, 2009 Quote: from BehindBars at 3:09 am on July 9, 2009 I did, until I found out taps were faking everything... =\ I'm a non believer again. WHOA. This is big news for me. Please go into further detail, just briefly.. -- Posted by Prince o palities at 8:21 am on July 9, 2009 Quote: from MushroomSatsujin at 9:12 pm on July 8, 2009 Ive had encounters with things I can not explain. Ill leave it at that I haven't, but I will not preclude the possibility of it happening to me in the future or having happened to others. -- Posted by Moridin at 9:07 am on July 9, 2009 Quote: from Prince o palities at 6:21 pm on July 9, 2009 Quote: from MushroomSatsujin at 9:12 pm on July 8, 2009 Ive had encounters with things I can not explain.    Ill leave it at that I haven't, but I will not preclude the possibility of it happening to me in the future or having happened to others. But when they cannot provide any shred of evidence besides implausible anecdotal stories, doesn't that make you skeptical of their claims? -- Posted by Prince o palities at 9:24 am on July 9, 2009 I'm indifferent, for the most part, to their anecdotal evidence.  Since it largely has no effect on me, I see no reason to take a firm stance on it either way.  It's about picking your battles, Moridin. -- Posted by Moridin at 9:37 am on July 9, 2009 Quote: from Prince o palities at 7:24 pm on July 9, 2009 I'm indifferent, for the most part, to their anecdotal evidence.  Since it largely has no effect on me, I see no reason to take a firm stance on it either way.  It's about picking your battles, Moridin. This indifference scares me a little, to be honest.   For instance, there are people who are trying to put forward anecdotal evidence claiming that there is a link between childhood vaccinations and autism (there is none). The scientific community is not at all impressed by this since they have refuted the link by several carefully done studies. But through the media, such as Oprah and so on, crackpot people are gaining ground. This does not most likely affect you as a person, but isn't it morally justified, or indeed morally obligatory to stand up for intellectual principles and honest scientific work against the forces of darkness? After all, it would be enormously damaging if our culture was subverted and undermined by this sort of anti-scientific tendencies, wouldn't you agree? http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/autism/mmr/sub3.cfm -- Posted by MushroomSatsujin at 9:51 am on July 9, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 9:07 am on July 9, 2009 Quote: from Prince o palities at 6:21 pm on July 9, 2009 Quote: from MushroomSatsujin at 9:12 pm on July 8, 2009 Ive had encounters with things I can not explain.   Ill leave it at that    I haven't, but I will not preclude the possibility of it happening to me in the future or having happened to others. But when they cannot provide any shred of evidence besides implausible anecdotal stories, doesn't that make you skeptical of their claims? Im even skeptical about my experiences, but I know what I saw. -- Posted by Moridin at 9:54 am on July 9, 2009 Quote: from MushroomSatsujin at 7:51 pm on July 9, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 9:07 am on July 9, 2009 Quote: from Prince o palities at 6:21 pm on July 9, 2009 Quote: from MushroomSatsujin at 9:12 pm on July 8, 2009 Ive had encounters with things I can not explain.       Ill leave it at that   I haven't, but I will not preclude the possibility of it happening to me in the future or having happened to others.    But when they cannot provide any shred of evidence besides implausible anecdotal stories, doesn't that make you skeptical of their claims? Im even skeptical about my experiences, but I know what I saw. Do you know what you saw, or just what your brain thinks it has seen? -- Posted by MushroomSatsujin at 9:58 am on July 9, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 9:54 am on July 9, 2009 Quote: from MushroomSatsujin at 7:51 pm on July 9, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 9:07 am on July 9, 2009 Quote: from Prince o palities at 6:21 pm on July 9, 2009 Quote: from MushroomSatsujin at 9:12 pm on July 8, 2009 Ive had encounters with things I can not explain.    Ill leave it at that       I haven't, but I will not preclude the possibility of it happening to me in the future or having happened to others.   But when they cannot provide any shred of evidence besides implausible anecdotal stories, doesn't that make you skeptical of their claims? Im even skeptical about my experiences, but I know what I saw. Do you know what you saw, or just what your brain thinks it has seen? Hard to say. What if what I think I saw, was really what I saw? Whos to say? -- Posted by Moridin at 10:03 am on July 9, 2009 Can you provide independently verifiable scientific evidence for your close encounter? If not, why should that which you think you say be taken seriously by anyone? What is the more likely: that you indeed saw a supernatural event that has eluded the grasp of brightest minds and sharpest tools of science for millenia, or that you simply for neurobiology reasons thought you saw something that you really didn't? -- Posted by MushroomSatsujin at 10:08 am on July 9, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 10:03 am on July 9, 2009 Can you provide independently verifiable scientific evidence for your close encounter? If not, why should that which you think you say be taken seriously by anyone? What is the more likely: that you indeed saw a supernatural event that has eluded the grasp of brightest minds and sharpest tools of science for millenia, or that you simply for neurobiology reasons thought you saw something that you really didn't? If undeniable evidence of spirits existed, dont you think we would have it? And I dont think this is something supernatural. I believe it is natural, but we do not have the technology nor the understanding to know what is really going on. Reasonable doubt goes a long with every experience because our imaginations do get the best of us. But does that mean there is no chance of ghosts existing? -- Posted by Prince o palities at 10:09 am on July 9, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 11:37 am on July 9, 2009 This indifference scares me a little, to be honest. For instance, there are people who are trying to put forward anecdotal evidence claiming that there is a link between childhood vaccinations and autism (there is none). The scientific community is not at all impressed by this since they have refuted the link by several carefully done studies. But through the media, such as Oprah and so on, crackpot people are gaining ground. This does not most likely affect you as a person, but isn't it morally justified, or indeed morally obligatory to stand up for intellectual principles and honest scientific work against the forces of darkness? After all, it would be enormously damaging if our culture was subverted and undermined by this sort of anti-scientific tendencies, wouldn't you agree? http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/autism/mmr/sub3.cfm I thought we were talking about paranormal occurences here.  What does my indifferece about ghosts have to do with anything you just said?  You're comparing apples and oranges. -- Posted by Moridin at 10:45 am on July 9, 2009 Quote: from Prince o palities at 8:09 pm on July 9, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 11:37 am on July 9, 2009 This indifference scares me a little, to be honest.      For instance, there are people who are trying to put forward anecdotal evidence claiming that there is a link between childhood vaccinations and autism (there is none). The scientific community is not at all impressed by this since they have refuted the link by several carefully done studies. But through the media, such as Oprah and so on, crackpot people are gaining ground.    This does not most likely affect you as a person, but isn't it morally justified, or indeed morally obligatory to stand up for intellectual principles and honest scientific work against the forces of darkness? After all, it would be enormously damaging if our culture was subverted and undermined by this sort of anti-scientific tendencies, wouldn't you agree?    http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/autism/mmr/sub3.cfm I thought we were talking about paranormal occurences here. What does my indifferece about ghosts have to do with anything you just said? You're comparing apples and oranges. I thought you argued that you where indifferent when someone presented anecdotal evidence for an extraordinary claim? I went with this and then reasoned that it is very dangerous to be indifferent to someone when you know you are being presenting anecdotal evidence for an extraordinary claim. I'm indifferent, for the most part, to their anecdotal evidence.  Since it largely has no effect on me, I see no reason to take a firm stance on it either way. -- Posted by Prince o palities at 11:44 am on July 9, 2009 ...you argued that you were indifferent when someone presented anecdotal evidence for an extraordinary claim? No, I didn't.  I said I was indifferent about anecdotal claims about paranormal occurrences, not all extraordinary claims. -- Posted by Stormblazer at 5:45 pm on July 9, 2009 No, I have no belief in the paranormal what-so-ever, and no reason to, -- Posted by Moridin at 12:35 pm on July 10, 2009 Quote: from Prince o palities at 9:44 pm on July 9, 2009 ...you argued that you were indifferent when someone presented anecdotal evidence for an extraordinary claim? No, I didn't. I said I was indifferent about anecdotal claims about paranormal occurrences, not all extraordinary claims. That's fair, but the issue is that you should not be indifferent but skeptical about someone presenting anecdotal evidence, in all claims. -- Posted by Moridin at 12:37 pm on July 10, 2009 Quote: from MushroomSatsujin at 8:08 pm on July 9, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 10:03 am on July 9, 2009 Can you provide independently verifiable scientific evidence for your close encounter? If not, why should that which you think you say be taken seriously by anyone? What is the more likely: that you indeed saw a supernatural event that has eluded the grasp of brightest minds and sharpest tools of science for millenia, or that you simply for neurobiology reasons thought you saw something that you really didn't? If undeniable evidence of spirits existed, dont you think we would have it? And I dont think this is something supernatural. I believe it is natural, but we do not have the technology nor the understanding to know what is really going on. Reasonable doubt goes a long with every experience because our imaginations do get the best of us. But does that mean there is no chance of ghosts existing? Yes, because all operational definitions that have been given are self-contradictory, and thus cannot refer to anything that exist in reality. How can you walk through walls and still reflect radiation (that is, be visible)? There are many more what these came from. Indeed, if ghosts, spirits and so on existed to the extent that paranormalists claim, we should have a profound amount of evidence for this, but we don't, so it is reasonable to conclude that ghosts, spirits and so on do not exist. -- Posted by MushroomSatsujin at 9:50 am on July 12, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 12:37 pm on July 10, 2009 Quote: from MushroomSatsujin at 8:08 pm on July 9, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 10:03 am on July 9, 2009 Can you provide independently verifiable scientific evidence for your close encounter? If not, why should that which you think you say be taken seriously by anyone? What is the more likely: that you indeed saw a supernatural event that has eluded the grasp of brightest minds and sharpest tools of science for millenia, or that you simply for neurobiology reasons thought you saw something that you really didn't? If undeniable evidence of spirits existed, dont you think we would have it? And I dont think this is something supernatural. I believe it is natural, but we do not have the technology nor the understanding to know what is really going on. Reasonable doubt goes a long with every experience because our imaginations do get the best of us. But does that mean there is no chance of ghosts existing? Yes, because all operational definitions that have been given are self-contradictory, and thus cannot refer to anything that exist in reality. How can you walk through walls and still reflect radiation (that is, be visible)? There are many more what these came from. Indeed, if ghosts, spirits and so on existed to the extent that paranormalists claim, we should have a profound amount of evidence for this, but we don't, so it is reasonable to conclude that ghosts, spirits and so on do not exist. Why? Is the human race so advanced, we should know everything by now?