332 replies to this topic

[OrdinaryClay]

orangepeaceful79, on 19 October 2012 - 04:30 AM, said:

The reason for this being that when you practice non-belief in demons or ghosts or bigfoots or whatever...all the things that people see and jump to the conclusion that they must be paranormal just end up being easily explainable naturally occurring phenomenon.

This is simply your unsubstantiated testimony you expect us to believe.

[orangepeaceful79]

OrdinaryClay, on 19 October 2012 - 04:43 AM, said:

You don't understand what evidence is. Properly vetted and corroborated testimony can stand as very good evidence. If you were in a court of law and called as a juror you would accept testimony as  evidence. If someone you loved was a victim of  a crime you would expect the jurors to accept such evidence. It's only in the fake world of the Internet that people reject such evidence.

Any good trial lawyer knows you should never convict on the basis of eyewitness testimony alone - you must have physical evidence also to build a solid case.  Eyewitnesses are inherently unreliable as objective measurers.  This is because our senses are subjective and everything we experience through them is subject to the filters in our minds.  An eyewitness can believe 100% that he or she is telling the truth and still recall many things inaccurately.  I'm not calling eyewitnesses of paranormal activity liars.  Please don't misunderstand me.

Its not just my opinion...


http://www.ncjrs.gov...t.aspx?ID=98096

http://agora.stanfor...her&tversky.htm

http://www.law.yale.edu/news/2727.htm

[OrdinaryClay]

orangepeaceful79, on 19 October 2012 - 04:59 AM, said:

Any good trial lawyer knows you should never convict on the basis of eyewitness testimony alone - you must have physical evidence also to build a solid case.  Eyewitnesses are inherently unreliable as objective measurers.  This is because our senses are subjective and everything we experience through them is subject to the filters in our minds.  An eyewitness can believe 100% that he or she is telling the truth and still recall many things inaccurately.  I'm not calling eyewitnesses of paranormal activity liars.  Please don't misunderstand me.

Its not just my opinion...


http://www.ncjrs.gov...t.aspx?ID=98096

http://agora.stanfor...her&tversky.htm

http://www.law.yale.edu/news/2727.htm

So your position has changed. Now you are are willing to accept testimony under some circumstances. This is exactly what I'm saying.

I never said accept any testimony. I said vetted and corroborated testimony, examples ... multiple witnesses, witness stature and status (experts are consistently given greater weight in trial), witness motive, witness consistency. There are many factors. Obviously people are mistaken and yes people lie including some who have claimed to have experienced paranormal events. Yes, people make mistakes in testimony, but that does not mean testimony is unusable as evidence. People are convicted in cases where testimony is the determining factor.

[SpiritWriter]

orangepeaceful79, on 19 October 2012 - 04:30 AM, said:

I think we are talking about different things.  When I say non-belief in demons, I'm talking about actively asserting and believing them to be fake and figments of the imagination.  I'm not talking about not having found religion, or merely not being aware of demons.  The reason for this being that when you practice non-belief in demons or ghosts or bigfoots or whatever...all the things that people see and jump to the conclusion that they must be paranormal just end up being easily explainable naturally occurring phenomenon.

But to say that you don't believe in 'the natural occurring phenomenon' that you have actually experienced, and pretending that it was indeed something else is being in denial... I'm not going to play tricks on my mind like that. This is for ME. I know what I have seen, so I know they exist...

Edited by SpiritWriter, 19 October 2012 - 01:58 PM.

[C235]

coldethyl, on 18 October 2012 - 11:49 PM, said:

Don't watch 'The Grudge' anymore.

she's more like the mermaids I saw in the ice age 4. she creates an illusion of a hot blond girl but my perception rapidly shifts between her true scary form & that fake blond.

Edited by C235, 19 October 2012 - 02:41 PM.

[coldethyl]

C235, on 19 October 2012 - 02:24 PM, said:

she's more like the mermaids I saw in the ice age 4. she creates an illusion of a hot blond girl but my perception rapidly shifts between her true scary form & that fake blond.

*shrugs* I haven't seen Ice Age 4.  My hair is mostly prematurely gray on it's own but if anyone wants to be a fake blonde, let them be.  At least you know she's not the typical Asian ghost that's come up recently in pop culture.

[praetorian-legio XIII]

I got rid of a demon once, I divorced her daughter.

[orangepeaceful79]

OrdinaryClay, on 19 October 2012 - 04:53 AM, said:

This is simply your unsubstantiated testimony you expect us to believe.

OrdinaryClay, on 19 October 2012 - 05:11 AM, said:

So your position has changed. Now you are are willing to accept testimony under some circumstances. This is exactly what I'm saying.

I never said accept any testimony. I said vetted and corroborated testimony, examples ... multiple witnesses, witness stature and status (experts are consistently given greater weight in trial), witness motive, witness consistency. There are many factors. Obviously people are mistaken and yes people lie including some who have claimed to have experienced paranormal events. Yes, people make mistakes in testimony, but that does not mean testimony is unusable as evidence. People are convicted in cases where testimony is the determining factor.

SpiritWriter, on 19 October 2012 - 01:57 PM, said:

But to say that you don't believe in 'the natural occurring phenomenon' that you have actually experienced, and pretending that it was indeed something else is being in denial... I'm not going to play tricks on my mind like that. This is for ME. I know what I have seen, so I know they exist...

Meh.  I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.  I'm not trying to take anyone's beliefs away, so it was silly of me to make the snarky blanket statement in the first post I threw out.  I live in a house that supposedly is haunted - or so I've been told very earnestly.  I don't believe it.  I've never seen a smidge of anything unexplainable happen in my house.  So whats the difference?  Either they are gullible or I'm in denial.  No way to prove either I suppose.

Nobody here needs my permission to believe in demons.  Until someone produces some kind of irrefutable, smoking gun evidence of their existence, I will believe simply and personally that they are non-existent.

I'll respectfully bow out of the discussion now.  Thanks for reading.

[Seeker79]

OrdinaryClay, on 18 October 2012 - 08:47 PM, said:

The shaman priests of the Aztecs slaughtered tens of thousands in blood sacrifices. Of course the difference is bethlaham was not a Christian, and the Aztecs were not lunatics.



He created free will. Free will freely chooses what path to follow. They could have chosen to do otherwise.

There can be no free will with omniscience.So which is it? Omniscience or freewill. The existence of omniscience ensures a deterministic universe.

Funny thing is that I believe in a great spirit, but not the devil of Abraham.

Edited by Seeker79, 19 October 2012 - 05:13 PM.

[orangepeaceful79]

Seeker79, on 19 October 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:

There can be no free will with omniscience.So which is it? Omniscience or freewill. The existence of omniscience ensures a deterministic universe.

Funny thing is that I believe in a great spirit, but not the devil of Abraham.

Exactly.  You can't have it both ways.  You either have free-will or you have God's plan.  Quite possibly the biggest contradiction in the whole damn Bible.

[Spky777]

I absolutely believe that nothing good could ever come out of the interaction.  If you think of being curios then its just a waste of time...  If you ever see one, hear one you will absolutely go crazy or become a priest or nun.  Things like that are never worth exloring or getting into.

[Seeker79]

Spky777, on 19 October 2012 - 08:01 PM, said:

I absolutely believe that nothing good could ever come out of the interaction.  If you think of being curios then its just a waste of time...  If you ever see one, hear one you will absolutely go crazy or become a priest or nun.  Things like that are never worth exloring or getting into.

I have seen "demons" at first I fought with them, then once I understood I took responsibility for them. Woke up one time with ones claws around my legs, I took control of the claws and made them massage my feet. I fell back asleep chuckling at myself.

[Simbi Laveau]

orangepeaceful79, on 19 October 2012 - 04:59 AM, said:

Any good trial lawyer knows you should never convict on the basis of eyewitness testimony alone - you must have physical evidence also to build a solid case.  Eyewitnesses are inherently unreliable as objective measurers.  This is because our senses are subjective and everything we experience through them is subject to the filters in our minds.  An eyewitness can believe 100% that he or she is telling the truth and still recall many things inaccurately.  I'm not calling eyewitnesses of paranormal activity liars.  Please don't misunderstand me.

Its not just my opinion...


http://www.ncjrs.gov...t.aspx?ID=98096

http://agora.stanfor...#38;tversky.htm

http://www.law.yale.edu/news/2727.htm

Yes,but how many people are wrongly convicted via eyewitness accounts ? The trial lawyer is quite unimportant ,when it comes down to the jury ,and common man's opinions .

Everyone sees things differently. When looking for witnesses,the cops always talk to the women for and details,as they notice much more than men .
They are trained to do this mind you.
Like in all things,some people are reliable and accurate ,some are not. Some see things way off the norm .
It's like the movie Rashamon .

[SpiritWriter]

orangepeaceful79, on 19 October 2012 - 04:27 PM, said:

Meh.  I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.  I'm not trying to take anyone's beliefs away, so it was silly of me to make the snarky blanket statement in the first post I threw out.  I live in a house that supposedly is haunted - or so I've been told very earnestly.  I don't believe it.  I've never seen a smidge of anything unexplainable happen in my house.  So whats the difference?  Either they are gullible or I'm in denial.  No way to prove either I suppose.

Nobody here needs my permission to believe in demons.  Until someone produces some kind of irrefutable, smoking gun evidence of their existence, I will believe simply and personally that they are non-existent.

I'll respectfully bow out of the discussion now.  Thanks for reading.

I didn't click like because you were bowing out of the discussion. I understand where you come from, you haven't seen the ghost that's supposedly in your house, so you don't believe it... I get it. If you did, you probably would believe it was there... etc..

It is fine to agree to disagree, you should feel good though, your in the majority..

[SpiritWriter]

Seeker79, on 19 October 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:

There can be no free will with omniscience.So which is it? Omniscience or freewill. The existence of omniscience ensures a deterministic universe.

Funny thing is that I believe in a great spirit, but not the devil of Abraham.

I believe in a great spirit and the father of Abraham I know some have their 'specific' Gods. But I think that those in Judo-christian etc. religions seek after the most high God. It may have been another entity to begin with that absolved into that hierarchy throughout history, but that doesn't mean Abraham, did not converse with the supreme being - whatever you want to call it. I know I'm different, but the notion of the Abrahamic God does not bother me.