Support NeoGAF

[V_Arnold]

I am confused.
What principle(s) are you using to determine if something is true?
You haven't really explained that, all you've said is that if someone think something is true - it is, to them at least.

And that is actually what I think in relation to the matter. For example, I understand and recognize that what I believe to be true for me is NOT what the consensus reality currently consider "true". That does not make a difference unless I also believe that I need to change the consensus reality somehow to match mine. And that road is paved with empty arguments, frustrations, disappointments, and ultimately: the fear "what if I am wrong?". That fear stems from the belief that there has to be one objective truth and if you are not acting according to that, you basically "wasted your life". But this is just a belief as well.

To you, is there anything that you consider false?
Or is everything that is presented to you a truth?

I consider this a game where you raise your vibrations or lower it. If you use your tools and your knowledge to be more content, more balanced, and potentially share this balance or feeling of love with others, you ultimately make a better experience for the mass consciousness as well. So I do not care whether something is true or not, the only thing that is interesting to me is whether it empowers you, raises your vibrations and your state of being, or it depowers, separates, pulls you down.

I see fear-based religions in our current reality, I see fear-based materialism, fear-based atheism and I see positive ones as well - from both "sides". I tend to stick to what inspires, what helps. What tries to separate falls off for me. (But as far as I understand it, there are consciousnesses paralell to us that DO want to lower and lower the vibrations just so they can experience that. Just to see how deep the hole is. But ultimately, you will get out of it.)

 

[SquiddyCracker]

And that is actually what I think in relation to the matter. For example, I understand and recognize that what I believe to be true for me is NOT what the consensus reality currently consider "true". That does not make a difference unless I also believe that I need to change the consensus reality somehow to match mine. And that road is paved with empty arguments, frustrations, disappointments, and ultimately: the fear "what if I am wrong?". That fear stems from the belief that there has to be one objective truth and if you are not acting according to that, you basically "wasted your life". But this is just a belief as well.

Right, but what alternative process of deciding upon a truth is there?
I'd like to see an example, because all you're saying is that someone can believe something to be true or not.

To you, is there anything that you consider false?
Or is everything that is presented to you a truth?

 

[astroturfing]

I tend to stick to what inspires, what helps.

so.. willful confirmation bias, justified by a lot of confusing mental gymnastics?

 

[V_Arnold]

so.. willful confirmation bias, justified by a lot of confusing mental gymnastics?

Sure, why not.

 

[Mihael Mello Keehl]

late but damn OPs story is pretty..what? Intense?

 

[astroturfing]

Sure, why not.

cool, i probably do it too a lot of the time. i think you should try to fight against the tendency though.

 

[Monocle]

Credulity
Delusion
Confirmation Bias
Misinterpretation
Lies

The explanation is almost invariably one or a combination of these. Rarely, someone encounters an explicable but presently mysterious natural occurrence.

 

[Omegasquash]

I explain them as their interpretation of an event that occurred, and would encourage them to examine the situation while letting go of that which they saw.

I don't doubt that they saw something, I don't doubt their claim. I prefer to question with skepticism. I'll share a story, here. I worked with a lady once that knew my father. Her daughter was going to marry a co-worker (young, they were religious without being pushy...they kept their beliefs private and personal). This woman was the sister of my father's best friend. She was (is, AFAIK) married to an arrogant prick, who was also a reformed alcoholic and abusive husband.

Apparently, in the back of his UPS truck one day, he passed out (after having been drinking lots). During his down time, he reported being visited by an angel, who told him to stop beating his wife. From that day forward, he didn't pick up alcohol, nor did he strike his wife.

According to my father, there's a different side to this. Apparently, this man, a known woman beater, hit his wife so hard that she needed stitches. Since this woman was well-liked around town, a few men (a police officer close to the family being one of them), took him for a ride. Through a swampy area. At night. The night before the angelic visitation.

So take your pick, there. A previously physically abusive man turned simple prick thanks to an angel visiting him while he was drunk in the back of a delivery truck, or what he was told on that ride putting fear in him.

 

[Bombadil]

I'm aware of the biases of the mind, top-down processing being foremost one of the biggest issues with perception.

I'm just playing devil's advocate in this thread.

So far, while some people are giving great responses, others are delivering inaccurate, unproven conjecture to explain away experiences. The problem is that if you don't know the answer, don't use pseudoscience to make yourself seem smarter. Just say "I don't know" or don't post responses.

Top down processing refers to the mind using information already stored in memory to supplement sensory information. For example, if you're looking at someone from far away, and your eyesight isn't really good enough to see their face clearly, your mind will often sharpen the image by adding features from memory. For this reason, you may often see your friend off in the distance only to walk closer and realize it's not him, just someone who vaguely looks like him.

The mind is constantly doing top-down processing and does it more as you get older because you get more and more sensory information stored in memory.

I've never experienced anything that couldn't have been explained scientifically.

However, I don't think that is a feather in the cap of science. As I see it, there are members of the "scientific community" - that is to say, there are people who graduated with degrees in a science field but are very interested in criticizing the religion and the supernatural, such as Sam Harris, who spend their lives writing books to explain people's experiences in a scientific manner. For this reason, there will always be a scientific, rational, non-supernatural explanation for someone's experiences. Even if someone experienced a true-blue supernatural experience, the first statement out of any skeptic would be, "You experienced a hallucination."

The fact of the matter is, the people in the scientific community have already concluded their minds about anything having to do with phenomena beyond the scope of what has been observed and documented.

I think this is actually harmful to scientific progress

Spoiler

not that I give a shit

. I think some people in the scientific community act like they know more than we as humans are actually capable of knowing. They convince themselves that current scientific knowledge is enough to explain much of the workings of the universe. Fifty years from now, or one hundred years from now, or one thousand years from now, what we know today is going to look like the sparse meanderings of the blind. But people in the current time period are so embedded in their beliefs.

 

[Log4Girlz]

I'm aware of the biases of the mind, top-down processing being foremost one of the biggest issues with perception.

I'm just playing devil's advocate in this thread.

So far, while some people are giving great responses, others are delivering inaccurate, unproven conjecture to explain away experiences. The problem is that if you don't know the answer, don't use pseudoscience to make yourself seem smarter. Just say "I don't know" or don't post responses.

Top down processing refers to the mind using information already stored in memory to supplement sensory information. For example, if you're looking at someone from far away, and your eyesight isn't really good enough to see their face clearly, your mind will often sharpen the image by adding features from memory. For this reason, you may often see your friend off in the distance only to walk closer and realize it's not him, just someone who vaguely looks like him.

The mind is constantly doing top-down processing and does it more as you get older because you get more and more sensory information stored in memory.

I've never experienced anything that couldn't have been explained scientifically.

However, I don't think that is a feather in the cap of science. As I see it, there are members of the "scientific community" - that is to say, there are people who graduated with degrees in a science field but are very interested in criticizing the religion and the supernatural, such as Sam Harris, who spend their lives writing books to explain people's experiences in a scientific manner. For this reason, there will always be a scientific, rational, non-supernatural explanation for someone's experiences. Even if someone experienced a true-blue supernatural experience, the first statement out of any skeptic would be, "You experienced a hallucination."

The fact of the matter is, the people in the scientific community have already concluded their minds about anything having to do with phenomena beyond the scope of what has been observed and documented.

I think this is actually harmful to scientific progress

Spoiler

not that I give a shit

. I think some people in the scientific community act like they know more than we as humans are actually capable of knowing. They convince themselves that current scientific knowledge is enough to explain much of the workings of the universe. Fifty years from now, or one hundred years from now, or one thousand years from now, what we know today is going to look like the sparse meanderings of the blind. But people in the current time period are so embedded in their beliefs.

Scientists patiently await evidence for extraordinary claims. Otherwise, what else can be said other than using an explanation that is perfectly valid and studied? If I walk up to a scientist and claim I saw a purple unicorn flying in the sky, how could he arrive to any other conclusion than hallucination?

Expecting skeptics to accept supernatural claims, or even entertain them is irresponsible.

 

[Anticitizen One]

Drugs and alchole can create all kinds "supernatural" experiences among other things

 

[SquiddyCracker]

I think this is actually harmful to scientific progress

Spoiler

not that I give a shit

. I think some people in the scientific community act like they know more than we as humans are actually capable of knowing. They convince themselves that current scientific knowledge is enough to explain much of the workings of the universe. Fifty years from now, or one hundred years from now, or one thousand years from now, what we know today is going to look like the sparse meanderings of the blind. But people in the current time period are so embedded in their beliefs.

This is kinda interesting, because I'm of the opposite opinion for pretty much the same reason.
Our current views wouldn't look like the sparse meanderings of the blind in a thousand years if we didn't stick to the scientific process that could give rise to increased accuracy, but even then - some scientific truths never change.

Newton was, is, and will never be wrong.

 

[Clevinger]

The fact of the matter is, the people in the scientific community have already concluded their minds about anything having to do with phenomena beyond the scope of what has been observed and documented.

That's a silly generalization.

 

[Bombadil]

Oh shit, I said scientific community. I meant to say people who call themselves skeptics. So, skeptic community? Though it's not really a community.

Take me for example, I label myself a skeptic. But here's what I see some other skeptics doing from time to time. They're spouting off something they read in a textbook, heard in a class, listened at a conference, whatever. They're using something they read in passing to explain a situation that is described by someone else in a non-scientific fashion (of course). The easiest explanation is always used to dismiss an experience which is for all purposes a sensory experience.

"The mind plays tricks."

"Cocaine is a helluva drug."

The problem I have with it is this:

There is a lot of certitude coming from people about the objective nature of the universe. If you knew 100 percent about the universe, then you could of course blame the brain for perceiving something that doesn't exist in the universe. Another thing I don't like is when skeptics use examples like "purple unicorn in the sky."

Someone says they say God, and the skeptic, being a human prone to snarkiness, will say, "Oh, well there's as much proof of God as there is of a purple unicorn in the sky or a flying spaghetti monster." So I ask myself, what is their goal in saying that - in comparing the concept of God to that of something clearly ridiculous? Are they trying to be purely scientific or are they adding that special touch of douchebaggery to make the believer feel stupid?

That's a silly generalization.

Why a "silly" generalization? Why not just a generalization? Am I wrong? The people in the scientific community are by and large atheists are they not? And the ones who aren't are either quiet about their beliefs or are outspokenly crazy and marginalized. What was the name of that female scientists who used to believe in the paranormal and tested for it for years before she came to the conclusion that is was all bunk and now claims - like Dawkins - that religion is a virus of the mind?

This is kinda interesting, because I'm of the opposite opinion for pretty much the same reason.
Our current views wouldn't look like the sparse meanderings of the blind in a thousand years if we didn't stick to the scientific process that could give rise to increased accuracy, but even then - some scientific truths never change.

Newton was, is, and will never be wrong.

The scientific method encourages us to act like we're blind while gathering data for years and years and years until we have enough to stand back and make an assessment. This is not the issue I have with science. The issue I have is with the people who have a high level of certitude in current findings even though these current findings are but a small slice of data that will be used in making a conclusion many years down the line. I don't think most humans, even people who label themselves skeptics, understand the vast scope of science, how long it takes to reach a tentative conclusion about something. People born 20 years ago read a book by Lawrence Krauss and think they have it down, they know how it works, they know why the universe is here. Same with Krauss. He will die, and a hundred years from now the conjectures and theories will be different. A thousand years from now Krauss will be very lucky if his ideas are even a footnote in a textbook. But humans wants answers now and skeptics are humans.

Scientists patiently await evidence for extraordinary claims. Otherwise, what else can be said other than using an explanation that is perfectly valid and studied? If I walk up to a scientist and claim I saw a purple unicorn flying in the sky, how could he arrive to any other conclusion than hallucination?

Expecting skeptics to accept supernatural claims, or even entertain them is irresponsible.

Or even entertain them? Irresponsible? What do you know about the supernatural? It's just a word used to describe things outside of the ordinary, outside of what we know. Do we know everything about the natural that we can create a category called the "supernatural"? It was irresponsible of us to create that term, irresponsible of us to act like we know everything about the natural when we know an infinitesimal amount. It makes no sense to me to describe anything in terms of natural or supernatural. Anything that is, is natural, but I make no claims about what the natural includes and doesn't include. On the other hand, some "skeptics" do make those claims. And they are being irresponsible.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Why do we characterize purple unicorns as clearly ridiculous but not god? I've never understood this. How does sky wizard with the power to do anything any less ridiculous?

 

[AgentP]

Everyone should read this book or something like it. human's find patterns, our brains are tricked and we believe in all kinds of nonsense.

 

[Bombadil]

Why do we characterize purple unicorns as clearly ridiculous but not god? I've never understood this. How does sky wizard with the power to do anything any less ridiculous?

Perhaps your conception of god is ridiculous. Perhaps nothing is ridiculous. Maybe people who use the word ridiculous or silly are just putting on airs.

 

[The Technomancer]

Bombadil skeptics aren't the ones claiming to have answers. That's the point of skepticism. The problem isn't people claiming to have experienced things they can't explain, the problem is that they do try to explain them without evidence. Pretty much every one of these stories I hear either explicitly or implicitly carries the explanation "and it could have been a ghost/an alien/an unknown force/something else I believe in". If it didn't explicitly or implicitly carry that explanation then there wouldn't be a story, it would just be mentally chalked up as something understood in our current framework.

Given that there is lots of evidence for all the ways the brain can be unreliable (in its perception of external events and in its internal workings) and given that there is no evidence for any alternate explanation it is irresponsible to dedicate serious consideration to the alternate explanation without pursuing evidence. If you're going to say "what I experienced wasn't my mind playing with me" than work to provide some evidence to the contrary or else accept that the currently available evidence is stacked against you.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Everyone should read this book or something like it. human's find patterns, our brains are tricked and we believe in all kinds of nonsense.

Wow, I like the title and cover...will look into it.

 

[Bombadil]

Bombadil skeptics aren't the ones claiming to have answers. That's the point of skepticism. The problem isn't people claiming to have experienced things they can't explain, the problem is that they do try to explain them without evidence. Pretty much every one of these stories I hear either explicitly or implicitly carries the explanation "and it could have been a ghost/an alien/something else I believe in".

Given that there is lots of evidence for all the ways the brain can be unreliable and given that there is no evidence for any alternate explanation it is irresponsible to dedicate serious consideration to the alternate explanation without pursuing evidence. If you're going to say "what I experienced wasn't my mind playing with me" than work to provide some evidence to the contrary or else accept that the currently available evidence is stacked against you.

I've moved on from talking about that Technomancer. I was talking about so-called skeptics who are doing wrong by skepticism.

It's all about certainty. There's a difference between saying that ghosts are an unverifiable phenomena and saying that people who believe in ghosts have a neurological disorder.

A skeptic should say, "there is no evidence of gods." A douchebag who took a few classes and had his mind made up from the getgo says "god was invented by people to control others, and anyone who believes in him is brainwashed."

Someone who disparages ideas using reductionist arguments and dysphemisms isn't a skeptic in my book. He's just a person who's inflating his ego.

 

[AgentP]

Wow, I like the title and cover...will look into it.

He is a smart guy, he also started and runs the Skeptic Society.

A skeptic should say, "there is no evidence of gods." A douchebag who took a few classes and had his mind made up from the getgo says "god was invented by people to control others, and anyone who believes in him is brainwashed."

One is a product of science, the other a conclusion from sociology and history.

 

[Log4Girlz]

I've moved on from talking about that Technomancer. I was talking about so-called skeptics who are doing wrong by skepticism.

It's all about certainty. There's a difference between saying that ghosts are an unverifiable phenomena and saying that people who believe in ghosts have a neurological disorder.

A skeptic should say, "there is no evidence of gods." A douchebag who took a few classes and had his mind made up from the getgo says "god was invented by people to control others, and anyone who believes in him is brainwashed."

Someone who disparages ideas using reductionist arguments and dysphemisms isn't a skeptic in my book. He's just a person who's inflating his ego.

So purple unicorns are simply unverifiable phenomena? So if I claim to have seen one, you Bombadil, who are a supernatural creature, would not question my sanity right?

 

[The Technomancer]

I've moved on from talking about that Technomancer. I was talking about so-called skeptics who are doing wrong by skepticism.

It's all about certainty. There's a difference between saying that ghosts are an unverifiable phenomena and saying that people who believe in ghosts have a neurological disorder.

A skeptic should say, "there is no evidence of gods." A douchebag who took a few classes and had his mind made up from the getgo says "god was invented by people to control others, and anyone who believes in him is brainwashed."

Someone who disparages ideas using reductionist arguments and dysphemisms isn't a skeptic in my book. He's just a person who's inflating his ego.

Yeah, pretty much agree with everything you've said here. But I get almost equally annoyed by people who say "how can you claim to be skeptic if you can't admit that it might have been a ghost!?" because they're saying that there was a real and not insignificant probability that "it was a ghost" is the correct explanation. (or else they wouldn't be devoting the time and energy to thinking about it)

 

[Bombadil]

So purple unicorns are simply unverifiable phenomena? So if I claim to have seen one, you Bombadil, who are a supernatural creature, would not question my sanity right?

Someone who disparages ideas using reductionist arguments and dysphemisms isn't a skeptic in my book. He's just a person who's inflating his ego.

.

Yeah, pretty much agree with everything you've said here. But I get almost equally annoyed by people who say "how can you claim to be skeptic if you can't admit that it might have been a ghost!?" because they're saying that there was a real and not insignificant probability that "it was a ghost" is the correct explanation. (or else they wouldn't be devoting the time and energy to thinking about it)

Yeah.

 

[Log4Girlz]

.

What if I claim I saw a witch? Witchcraft is still punishable by death in many countries?

What about Zombies? Many cultures believe in Zombies.

What about Demons?

What about Fairies?

What about Spirit Animals?

What about Aliens?

Bombadil, If I claimed to have been abducted by Aliens. What would your opinion be? Unverifiable claim? You wouldn't question my sanity, even though it would

NOT BE A SUPERNATURAL CLAIM.

 

[Bombadil]

What if I claim I saw a witch? Witchcraft is still punishable by death in many countries?

What about Zombies? Many cultures believe in Zombies.

What about Demons?

What about Fairies?

What about Spirit Animals?

What about Aliens?

Bombadil, If I claimed to have been abducted by Aliens. What would your opinion be? Unverifiable claim? You wouldn't question my sanity, even though it would

NOT BE A SUPERNATURAL CLAIM.

Why are you doing exactly what I criticized people for doing? Don't you think you should take it as a learning opportunity?

 

[Xero]

Logs going into like hyper troll mode apparently.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Why are you doing exactly what I criticized people for doing? Don't you think you should take it as a learning opportunity?

I want an answer. Your best friend comes along and swears they were taken up by a UFO and probed by Aliens. This is not even a supernatural claim. What is your natural inclination Bombadil? What do you think of your friend?

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Why do we characterize purple unicorns as clearly ridiculous but not god? I've never understood this. How does sky wizard with the power to do anything any less ridiculous?

Without delving into the ultimate plausibility of specific religious belief, I personally think the answer is very clear in terms of the purpose of such a belief. What utility is there for me to believe that a purple unicorn exists? I've never seen one, and I don't know what I'd get out of buying into the notions that such a thing is real, so what's there to discuss?

Yes, the rational skeptic who requires proof of claims can conclude that the "sky wizard" is equally implausible, but clearly the function is completely different. Whether or not specific gods and beliefs sound preposterous, it's not difficult for me to understand why people gravitate towards believing something more powerful than us is at work even if I myself don't buy into it.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Without delving into the ultimate plausibility of specific religious belief, I personally think the answer is very clear in terms of the purpose of such a belief. What utility is there for me to believe that a purple unicorn exists? I've never seen one, and I don't know what I'd get out of buying into the notions that such a thing is real, so what's there to discuss?

Yes, the rational skeptic who requires proof of claims can conclude that the "sky wizard" is equally implausible, but clearly the function is completely different. Whether or not specific gods and beliefs sound preposterous, it's not difficult for me to understand why people gravitate towards believing something more powerful than us is at work even if I myself don't buy into it.

They gravitate to "intelligent" supernatural systems because we are biased to believe such things. There was once a time where hundreds of mythological creatures existed in this world. Unicorns were real. Manticores were real. Harpies were all once real to people. Then as we went about discovering the world, no actual evidence for their existence came to be, and they have receded from "common knowledge"...they ceased to exist. Ghosts are no different at all from these beings in my mind.

Insisting they exist or that you have seen one makes me question your mental faculties at that moment or in general depending on what is claimed in the same way Bombadil would question his best friend's mental faculties if he swore he was abducted by Aliens...or saw a purple unicorn.

God, ghosts, angels and other more "human like" mystical creatures have an air of credibility because people tend to believe in them more intensely.

But Bombadil, please correct me if I'm wrong if I assume you would question someone's sanity if they insist to you they have been abducted by aliens.

 

[paparazzo]

Regarding the experiences of the friend of the OP, I honestly believe those occurrences were demonic and not directed by God. From what I've heard and read, speaking in tongues like that all of a sudden and hearing voices means there is a demon or demons plaguing him. I don't expect many on here to back me up on this.

For whatever reason, God allows the devil a certain amount of control over certain people be it through possession, voices, or various unexplainable events. The bible doesn't go into much depth on this so this is a very controversial viewpoint but I tend to think it makes sense from various teachings and such I've seen.

 

[archnemesis]

Do you have link to these teachings? I'm curious to learn more about it.

 

[Raist]

Your friend's friend planted a tiny speaker in his ear and gave him detailed instructions for something that was entirely set up, with the aid of the FBI.

 

[iamblades]

I've moved on from talking about that Technomancer. I was talking about so-called skeptics who are doing wrong by skepticism.

It's all about certainty. There's a difference between saying that ghosts are an unverifiable phenomena and saying that people who believe in ghosts have a neurological disorder.

A skeptic should say, "there is no evidence of gods." A douchebag who took a few classes and had his mind made up from the getgo says "god was invented by people to control others, and anyone who believes in him is brainwashed."

Someone who disparages ideas using reductionist arguments and dysphemisms isn't a skeptic in my book. He's just a person who's inflating his ego.

This is a typical anti -skeptic argument though.

"skeptics are closed minded because they refuse to consider my beliefs without any evidence"

Skeptics may come off as dismissive and harsh, but that's because there has never been any scientific evidence for the supernatural in the history of ever, so if you come with supernatural claims with no evidence and expect them to consider it as equally valid to any other hypothesis, it's kind of annoying.

Science is not about exploring every conceivable or imagined hypothesis. It's about testing the most likely ones based on the current evidence. Anti science people who want scientists to treat their pet beliefs as legitimate are just wasting everyone's time. Your beliefs do not deserve the same attention as theories that have actual evidence backing them up.

Either come with some legit evidence, or don't get offended when people call you irrational or just plain crazy.

 

[NobleGundam]

I do believe in the supernatural.

I'll try to summarize my post, but this is all actual events and not one is altered as a lie.

This was in 2010 during my early college years. My friends decided to hangout at their place to go for a swim after we got out of our classes. Decided to relax and share some stories in the pool. Our friend Robert was telling us about Animal Spirits, and a lady that he and other friends of his referred to as "Grandma". What he said was that she can tell you of your Animal Spirit, an inner spirit guide in the form of an animal that represents who you are as well. Very interesting to listen to and never heard of this type of spirits and this woman whom he supposedly knew.

A few months had passed since last we hanged out with Robert. This particular day happened to be of an old friends birthday, so me, my best friend Sam and John decided we'd stop by and celebrate at her party. Got the address and drove to where the party was being held. All three of us were having a good time and conversing with a few people we know from high school and college that were there that night.

A friend mentioned about "Grandma" being within the house and finding out this is her home she was throwing for our friend Crystal's Birthday Party. We were suprised to find out and curious to meet her and have an interesting conversation if possible. She is an elder woman around her late 50s, sweet lady, and was skeptical at our presence wondering what was our purpose and how did we know of her. We told her everything from Roberts stories about her ability and coincidentally found out she was at the party. She eased up and agreed to share about herself abit of ability to speak and see with spirits that she at an everyday occasion communicates with.

We asked if she could share us of our Animal Spirits. She had agreed to our request and had everyone except all four of us being inside her home. There were alot of people and she told them all to go outside, Which they did. The room was silent and she remained still infront of us. Told us of our Animal Spirits which represented us individually. But then when she got to me, she said more about me, she said, "Oh Honey, Don't Risk your life for your friends... They come and go". I was shocked... No one knew of this because I kept this very strong belief and feelings that I would Die in protecting my friends and family as a secret oath with myself. Yet this woman I never met, KNEW of this and spoken to me as if I were her child.... Wth.... She is a Medium is what I know of her, but thats it.

These people with these kinds of Gifts/Curses can foresee our past, present, and future. And it's insane if you met one in person. Till this day she is still in communication with us and her kids, which we befriended later on in our lives. I hope this experience of mine helps the thread and Op in believing these supernatural occurrences are real.

 

[paparazzo]

Do you have link to these teachings? I'm curious to learn more about it.

Just finished this book on the subject. I don't actually agree with 100% of it but for the most part it is pretty solid at telling how one can become possessed and the dangers of cults and such. Other teachings I was referring to I've mainly heard through a teacher who's done extensive research on the subject and has come into contact with possessed people and performed exorcisms himself. I think he may be writing a book soon and I could provide a link in the future if you're interested.

 

[astroturfing]

Regarding the experiences of the friend of the OP, I honestly believe those occurrences were demonic and not directed by God. From what I've heard and read, speaking in tongues like that all of a sudden and hearing voices means there is a demon or demons plaguing him. I don't expect many on here to back me up on this.

For whatever reason, God allows the devil a certain amount of control over certain people be it through possession, voices, or various unexplainable events. The bible doesn't go into much depth on this so this is a very controversial viewpoint but I tend to think it makes sense from various teachings and such I've seen.

no, no, no... NO. this type of thinking is goddamn dangerous. believing that humans can be controlled by demons or inhabited by evil spirits is LOONY and can lead to no good. so many people in history and even still today have been branded by ignorant people as possessed by demons or being evil just because they get epileptic seizures or curse uncontrollably (Tourettes) or speak "in tongues" and for many other reasons... it is so wrong. a human is always just a human, there is no evil spirits or demons or satan controlling anyone, ever.

seriously, demons? DEMONS? look at what youre typing man..

 

[SquiddyCracker]

, "Oh Honey, Don't Risk your life for your friends... They come and go". I was shocked... No one knew of this because I kept this very strong belief and feelings that I would Die in protecting my friends and family as a secret oath with myself. Yet this woman I never met, KNEW of this and spoken to me as if I were her child.... Wth.... She is a Medium is what I know of her, but thats it.

I am not interested in changing your beliefs, but that sound like a standard case of hot/cold reading.

 

[ConfusingJazz]

I always start it off from the point that your brain is a pretty amazing organ, but has a tendency to fail you for laziness reasons.

For example, this optical illusion: http://i.imgur.com/rxehR.jpg (won't img tag, because it will give headaches).

I know its not actually waving, but my brain is interpreting the data from my eyes, cutting a few corners, and showing it as waving.

Go in a sensory deprivation chamber, and the opposite kinda happens, and you get really trippy.

I think its a combination of things like this, typically.

 

[Deified Data]

Most of it's bullshit, some of it may have a ring of truth. I'll believe it when I see it.

To answer the question, how I explain away the unexplainable: I don't.

 

[Bombadil]

This is a typical anti -skeptic argument though.

"skeptics are closed minded because they refuse to consider my beliefs without any evidence"

Skeptics may come off as dismissive and harsh, but that's because there has never been any scientific evidence for the supernatural in the history of ever, so if you come with supernatural claims with no evidence and expect them to consider it as equally valid to any other hypothesis, it's kind of annoying.

Science is not about exploring every conceivable or imagined hypothesis. It's about testing the most likely ones based on the current evidence. Anti science people who want scientists to treat their pet beliefs as legitimate are just wasting everyone's time. Your beliefs do not deserve the same attention as theories that have actual evidence backing them up.

Either come with some legit evidence, or don't get offended when people call you irrational or just plain crazy.

No. My head is starting to hurt because every time I read posts like these I can immediately see the underlying structure of logical fallacies.

This is not a typical argument. Telling people to be polite is not anti-skeptical. And not every person who labels himself a skeptic is one. It's more like, people are assholes. Whether or not they're skeptical is not really the point. If you think you come across as harsh simply because you're a skeptic, I must disagree. There are polite skeptics and there are assholes. There are open-minded skeptics (aka they act polite) and there are asshole skeptics (disparage ideas based on pop-cultural conditioning "God, you say? You mean, you believe in a magical sky fairy?").

If you must reduce the concept of god to the lowest form possible to make it seem ridiculous, then you're not really a skeptic. It's easy enough to say that there is no credible evidence for the existence of any god or higher power. To call god a "magical sky fairy" or equate the existence of god with that of a unicorn living on the planet Mars does not inspire any level of intelligent discussion.

What does it truly mean to be a skeptic? Simply being an atheist does not fulfill the criteria. Quoting other atheists reflects an appeal to authority/credibility. It doesn't sound like freethinking to me when I've read that bit about "magical sky wizards/fairies" more than a thousand times on the internet. Thinking about things critically without resorting to snark is very difficult to do, but if one is going to label himself a skeptic, he should at least make the effort.

 

[Deified Data]

No. My head is starting to hurt because every time I read posts like these I can immediately see the underlying structure of logical fallacies.

This is not a typical argument. Telling people to be polite is not anti-skeptical. And not every person who labels himself a skeptic is one. It's more like, people are assholes. Whether or not they're skeptical is not really the point. If you think you come across as harsh simply because you're a skeptic, I must disagree. There are polite skeptics and there are assholes. There are open-minded skeptics (aka they act polite) and there are asshole skeptics (disparage ideas based on pop-cultural conditioning "God, you say? You mean, you believe in a magical sky fairy?").

If you must reduce the concept of god to the lowest form possible to make it seem ridiculous, then you're not really a skeptic. It's easy enough to say that there is no credible evidence for the existence of any god or higher power. To call god a "magical sky fairy" or equate the existence of god with that of a unicorn living on the planet does not inspire any level of intelligent discussion.

What does it truly mean to be a skeptic? Simply being an atheist does not fulfill the criteria. Quoting other atheists reflects an appeal to authority/credibility. It doesn't sound like freethinking to me when I've read that bit about "magical sky wizards/fairies" more than a thousand times on the internet. Thinking about things critically without resorting to snark is very difficult to do, but if one is going to label himself a skeptic, he should at least make the effort.

*slowclap*

It's the easiest thing in the world to politely disagree with someone. That we always seek to insult our rhetorical opponents has always bothered me.

 

[brumx]

Ive seen my old CRT shake a few years back when I woke up. Think it was possessed by the last owner not sure tho.

 

[Vermillion]

No. My head is starting to hurt because every time I read posts like these I can immediately see the underlying structure of logical fallacies.

This is not a typical argument. Telling people to be polite is not anti-skeptical. And not every person who labels himself a skeptic is one. It's more like, people are assholes. Whether or not they're skeptical is not really the point. If you think you come across as harsh simply because you're a skeptic, I must disagree. There are polite skeptics and there are assholes. There are open-minded skeptics (aka they act polite) and there are asshole skeptics (disparage ideas based on pop-cultural conditioning "God, you say? You mean, you believe in a magical sky fairy?").

If you must reduce the concept of god to the lowest form possible to make it seem ridiculous, then you're not really a skeptic. It's easy enough to say that there is no credible evidence for the existence of any god or higher power. To call god a "magical sky fairy" or equate the existence of god with that of a unicorn living on the planet Mars does not inspire any level of intelligent discussion.

What does it truly mean to be a skeptic? Simply being an atheist does not fulfill the criteria. Quoting other atheists reflects an appeal to authority/credibility. It doesn't sound like freethinking to me when I've read that bit about "magical sky wizards/fairies" more than a thousand times on the internet. Thinking about things critically without resorting to snark is very difficult to do, but if one is going to label himself a skeptic, he should at least make the effort.

Hear, hear!

 

[The Technomancer]

If you must reduce the concept of god to the lowest form possible to make it seem ridiculous, then you're not really a skeptic. It's easy enough to say that there is no credible evidence for the existence of any god or higher power. To call god a "magical sky fairy" or equate the existence of god with that of a unicorn living on the planet Mars does not inspire any level of intelligent discussion.

I agree with specifically saying "magical sky fairy" with all the dismissive and sarcastic tone it usually carries is not conducive to good conversation, but the comparison of God to another kind of mythological being seems very valid to me and anyone who gets angry because they don't like their belief in God being compared to belief in unicorns is being too sensitive. I do not think that the comparison itself is inherently hostile, only perhaps its presentation.

 

[NobleGundam]

I am not interested in changing your beliefs, but that sound like a standard case of hot/cold reading.

It was more than a simple guess. At that time I did not believe of the supernatural and any of the kind.

I was not overwhelmed or underwhelmed to tell by body language. She didn't know any us when we first meet her. Nor little did we knew of her personally, yet she read us like a book. Everything from whom we were and from our pasts she knew everything. I can't explain how, but she did.

Very nice lady. Everyone that was at the party (about 25 or more people) has had the same reading she had given them. Weird and vague of my post but that is the limit of what I can explain of that night. But if you do meet a medium, treat them with as much kindness and respect. I don't expect anyone to believe me at all, but at least consider that there are people who have such an ability.

 

[Osietra]

Intense and massively interesting supernatural facts of my life so far

I've lived in a haunted house, and heard tapping noises/seen figures out of the corner of my eye, other family members smelt cigar smoke/strong perfume in the night (detached house, basically surrounded by fields).

Seen what seemed to move like a giant moth in the sky (massively cloudy at the time) gf with me when walking the dog on a dark evening, she was slightly freaked out lol.

Seen 3 weird lights, twice, once in Wales, witnessed by 3 other friends in a car, and once in the UK. First was in a triangle, the second was more like a moving line of lights, both again at night.

Also Orgonite basically doesnt work for shit when growing vegetables.

 

[Raist]

It was more than a simple guess. At that time I did not believe of the supernatural and any of the kind.

I was not overwhelmed or underwhelmed to tell by body language. She didn't know any us when we first meet her. Nor little did we knew of her personally, yet she read us like a book. Everything from whom we were and from our pasts she knew everything. I can't explain how, but she did.

Very nice lady. Everyone that was at the party (about 25 or more people) has had the same reading she had given them. Weird and vague of my post but that is the limit of what I can explain of that night. But if you do meet a medium, treat them with as much kindness and respect. I don't expect anyone to believe me at all, but at least consider that there are people who have such an ability.

No, what he means is that this is a very general/common thing and thus the chances of hitting close to home are very high. Especially if there was some discussion before that.
Now if she told you to not spend too much money on your secret 1945-1995 south-east asian stamp collection because you'll lose it all in 2 years because of a fire incident, that would be impressive.

 

[Vermillion]

I agree with specifically saying "magical sky fairy" with all the dismissive and sarcastic tone it usually carries is not conducive to good conversation, but the comparison of God to another kind of mythological being seems very valid to me and anyone who gets angry because they don't like their belief in God being compared to belief in unicorns is being too sensitive. I do not think that the comparison itself is inherently hostile, only perhaps its presentation.

You're comparing the being that people put faith in and worship to a unicorn. Use other deities if you must, but a unicorn?

 

[The Technomancer]

You're comparing the being that people put faith in and worship to a unicorn. Use other deities if you must, but a unicorn?

Is there that much of a difference between saying "belief in God is like belief in Zeus" and "belief in God is like belief in a Unicorn"? Maybe its just me but Zeus and Unicorns feel on pretty equal footing these days.