Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Sheetz

A question for skeptics and non-believers

74 posts in this topic

Again, I'm only referring to this as a question of: Is this type of analysis valid enough?? Or should there be more.

To the skeptics, nothing is never "enough." It's just how it is...

Edited by Shankpin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? Exaggerate much? Can I ask what sort of ghost or demon or whatever would be the best one as far as catchability, or actual, you know, EVIDENCE?

What's YOUR very best example of compelling evidence to date?

Well, naturally, given there isn't any actual evidence, what else could you possibly use?

That's lovely. Have you tested this ability in any way, or must we just take your word (and who wouldn't...)? Some have done some very simple tests, and found that these out of body experiences didn't stand much scrutiny. Did the person 'experience' something? Yes, I'm quite sure they did. Just like I experience dreams...

Generalise and ad hominem much? I'm a skeptic, so I guess that means I'm likely one of those sheep..

Yeah, that's such a BAD thing! :rolleyes: And it's a great example of a straw man argument. I DO think dreams are real. But is their content real? Similarly, if someone genuinely believes in an experience or perception, I also accept that experience or perception is real to them. Does that make that perception (or dream content..) truly real?

I disagree. Most discoveries are made by those who are familiar with the topic and apply rigour and methodology to it in order to widen our knowledge base.

In fact I challenge you to name a good number of the discoveries made by those on the fringe.. And we'll compare that with the number made by those who are just doing their job.. I'd also point out that those discoveries were not accepted until they were verified as testable, repeatable.. by.. the mainstream.

Indeed it is. Like this:

Rubbish. EVERYTHING we perceive is processed by our brains. Every single image you see, sound you hear, etc is a perception, affected by your senses, your past experience, your brain's enormous storehouse of memories and the processing it does to meld the new information into the mix. Even the scene that you are seeing right now, no matter what it is, contains several inaccuracies (- I'm happy to elaborate). And the proliferation of things like optical illusions or even the effects of mind-altering substances, should tell you that perception is an extraordinarily tricky business. And I haven't even started on hoaxes..

My perceptions are often flawed. My memories are often inaccurate, even on important details. So YES, I can and sometimes do deny and/or question my personal experiences.

If you truly believe that you are different, you are simply kidding yourself.

BTW, what exactly is the problem with Randi's challenge? Is it the fact that the challenger gets to help design the tests and has to be happy with the methodology beforehand? Seems to me that it couldn't be much fairer..

And again, please give your very best evidence of the paranormal, and we'll apply a bit of rigour, shall we?

Would you like me to suggest a very simple test for your OOBE's? You will need a Justice of the Peace or Notary Public who is amenable to following some simple instructions and willing for their identity to be fully verified, but other than that it would only take a very small amount of effort.. Think of this as a simplified Randi-type challenge without the reward (other than the kudos if you were successful).. And yes, you'll get to agree to the (very few) conditions, but if you refuse any of them you will have to explain why and suggest better ones.

PS - my presence here can be a bit patchy, you may have to be patient..

Well I'll try to keep up with all that on my little iPhone.

I'm not exaggerating at all. Even myself. If scientists claimed they caught a spirit I would not believe it. I would have to see it. Then even then I would remain sceptical thinking it was some sort of hoax. It takes a powerful personal experience to change somebody's mind wether that experience be with faith in empiricism or being smacked.

Hmmmm a fallacy pointing out a common fallacy.... Guess I'm guilty.

Yes It is a bad thing when the potential exists for those gurus to be completely wrong and perpetuate dogmas.

There is a plethora of evidence. But all forms of evidence are flawed, therefore it's the aggregate of the evidences that start to show a bigger picture and make certain things more and more likely. Empiricism is Useful but just as flawed S the ober forms of evidence. Being an empirical fundamentalist and only accepting empirical evidence for everything absolutely always leads to a completely inaccurate view, because there things in existence that cannot be measured by empirical standards, and there is vast amount of unknowable knowledge. This is why all bits of evidence from different places need to be considered. Would you like me to explain an example of the glaring failure of empiricism.

Of course it dosnt make it real.... But it dosnt make it not real either. Did you really drive a car in that dream? Of course not. But there is a deeper reality happening.

Of course everything is happening in our minds....see the quote under my avatar.

That's all I was saying. The frontlines are where discoveries are made. There are lots of discovers made by accident while persuing other things, and there are lots of metaphysical discoveries made by people. These cannot be classified as scientific discoverys because as you pointed out. The nature of our existence is extremely personal. We are locked into our perceptions. A deep inner discovery is not measurable. But that dosnt mean it did not happen. It is repeatable However. You just have to be a participant to repeat it.

You do not have the slightest clue about the nature of the OOB environment. How could you possibly design a test in such ignorance? I have got a better idea. Why don't you let me be your tutor, and you do it yourself. Then when the time comes I will show you how to proove it to yourself. It's a little tricky given the nature of sponsoring thoughts, but it can be done.

Oh that's right.... You don't trust your own experiences....

A bit of rigor? You mean a load of creative philibustering don't you?

Edited by Seeker79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personal experiences, as we all know, are very subjective and thusly cannot count as evidence of any kind. Any sort of phenomena, to be proven, would need to be observable, testable, and repeatable, otherwise it may as well be dismissed as any kind of evidence.

All evidence is a personal experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To the skeptics, nothing is never "enough." It's just how it is...

And to believers every shadow is proof.

All evidence is a personal experience.

No. It's not. Personal experiences are subjective evidence. They are unverifiable, usually unrepeatable and boil down to nothing but personal opinion. Objective evidence is verifiable by outside parties, repeatable, testable, etc. Objective evidence is factual, subjective evidence is not.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From that viewpoint, I'm trying to understand what if anything is left to be given as "proof". That's why I gave the youtube example above. While the show is thought of as cheesy or hokey by many, in this one particular example, they go the extra step and have an expert forensic video engineer put it through the paces. Does the fact that he found without a doubt that the video has not been altered prove anything?? Not sure that helps at all...but the best way I can explain my viewpoint.

Let me give my example on "experience." Experience is real, it can not be proven scientifically, or captured on a photograph, or film, why? because the experience is memory- thoughts, emotions attached to that memory. This can not be proven by science. But we know we expeienced a certain thing... it's real. It may not be captured by science, forgodsakes, but it's real. Same as spirit. There's no difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me give my example on "experience." Experience is real, it can not be proven scientifically, or captured on a photograph, or film, why? because the experience is memory- thoughts, emotions attached to that memory. This can not be proven by science. But we know we expeienced a certain thing... it's real. It may not be captured by science, forgodsakes, but it's real. Same as spirit. There's no difference.

The problem with memory is that it is not an exact recording of an event like people think it is. Memories can, and often do, change over time. Also what one person experiences and attributes to the paranormal maybe just be something that they are not familiar with or something they misidentified, etc.

And to add, there is no reason for belief in "spirit" outside of religion. It's not testable, observable, or even quantifiable.

Edited by Imaginarynumber1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And to believers every shadow is proof.

No. It's not. Personal experiences are subjective evidence. They are unverifiable, usually unrepeatable and boil down to nothing but personal opinion. Objective evidence is verifiable by outside parties, repeatable, testable, etc. Objective evidence is factual, subjective evidence is not.

Spirit can NOT be proven by science because Spirit is NOT scientific, it's spirit. For example, Dissect a brain and you have physical matter, but to detect memories, feelings, personality It/'s impossible- Can NOT be done even with all of our technology we have, LOL, it can't be proven. Conversely, Spirit can not be scientific- We're discussing the comparison b/t apples and oranges here. That's why I hate these freakin arguements btw.

When we die, we physically die. But, there are things that we are that leave us that are free, such as our emotions, personalities, attachments through emotions, thoughts, basically who we are, our spirit. It moves on. It never dies. It merely stays with us encased in our physical bodies while we are alive, once we die, our spirit frees itself.

It can't be proven. Nor, wil it never will be.

AND BTW, im NOT religious at all- just to clarify.

Edited by Shankpin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spirit can NOT be proven by science because Spirit is NOT scientific, it's spirit. For example, Dissect a brain and you have physical matter, but to detect memories, feelings, personality It/'s impossible- Can NOT be done even with all of our technology we have, LOL, it can't be proven. Conversely, Spirit can not be scientific- We're discussing the comparison b/t apples and oranges here. That's why I hate these freakin arguements btw.

When we die, we physically die. But, there are things that we are that leave us that are free, such as our emotions, personalities, attachments through emotions, thoughts, basically who we are, our spirit. It moves on. It never dies. It merely stays with us encased in our physical bodies while we are alive, once we die, our spirit frees itself.

It can't be proven. Nor, wil it never will be.

AND BTW, im NOT religious at all- just to clarify.

That's your belief, not fact. Science clearly shows that our minds are a result of electrochemical reactions. If something is factual and exists, objectively, it can be proven. To date, the concept of spirit or soul has never been evidenced in any way and many many a men have tried.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's your belief, not fact. Science clearly shows that our minds are a result of electrochemical reactions. If something is factual and exists, objectively, it can be proven. To date, the concept of spirit or soul has never been evidenced in any way and many many a men have tried.

LOL i NEVER said it was a fact. I'm able to discus my "beliefs" as well as you are.

and again, As I stated in a previous post you can't prove spirit. There is no evidence wih spirit because spirit can't be proven scientifically. & (I assume when you mention "evidence" you mean scientifically proven.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL i NEVER said it was a fact. I'm able to discus my "beliefs" as well as you are.

and again, As I stated in a previous post you can't prove spirit. There is no evidence wih spirit because spirit can't be proven scientifically. & (I assume when you mention "evidence" you mean scientifically proven.)

I also never said that you said it was fact. I just reaffirmed that it was your opinion. And I will again state that ANYTHING that exists can be ""proven" scientifically, as science is not only the classification of knowledge, but the way in which we purse such knowledge. That's why we know such things as vampires, elves and eskimos don't exist. Because of critical thinking and testable, repeatable hypotheses, not adherence to beliefs that have no grounding in reality.

Edited by Imaginarynumber1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the viewpoints going back and forth, but have yet to see an answer to my question from any of the skeptics or non-believers. Can you give an example of a type of evidence that would be shown to you that might change your mind

I answered this - and it is not a difficult thing to understand: scientific evidence is what is needed. It really is as simple as that. If you understand the scientific method, then you understand what is needed for something to be established as fact (or as close to fact as it allows).

A blurry photo and people thinking they saw something is not scientific evidence.

I did not say it was the best way to objectify something I said it was the best way to covince somebody of something.

And is therefore useless.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also never said that you said it was fact. I just reaffirmed that it was your opinion. And I will again state that ANYTHING that exists can be ""proven" scientifically, as science is not only the classification of knowledge, but the way in which we purse such knowledge.

Of course, anything that "exists" physically can be proven. Memories, emotions, personality can't be proven because it doesn't "exists" physically. Similar to Psychology, it's not brain surgery it's based soley on personality and disorders that can only be proven by actions/observations of the actions of the person- the person's patterns of thoughts etc,.

That's why we know such things as vampires, elves and eskimos don't exist. Because of critical thinking and testable, repeatable hypotheses, not adherence to beliefs that have no grounding in reality.

I don't necessarily believe in those things, personally. But, I'll tell you "reality" is what we (observe.)

Edited by Shankpin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, anything that "exists" physically can be proven. Memories, emotions, personality can't be proven because it doesn't "exists" physically. Similar to Psychology, it's not brain surgery it's based soley on personality and disorders that can only be proven by actions/observations of the actions of the person- the person's patterns of thoughts etc,.

I don't necessarily believe in those things, personally. But, I'll tell you "reality" is what we (observe.)

I never said exists physically. I said exists. Memories, emotions and personality are all testable, repeatable and observable. Ghosts, spirit, NIckleback making good music, are not things that exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said exists physically. I said exists. Memories, emotions and personality are all testable, repeatable and observable. Ghosts, spirit, NIckleback making good music, are not things that exist.

No, not testable, repeatable, but only meets a particular pattern of observation of thought patterns/personality/behaviors that meets criteria to make diagnosis.

lol, you have no arguement I see.

The sound of the music don't exist, and neither do ghost- :}

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, not testable, repeatable, but only meets a particular pattern of observation of thought patterns/personality/behaviors that meets criteria to make diagnosis.

lol, you have no arguement I see.

The sound of the music don't exist, and neither do ghost- :}

I have a very clear and concise argument, you just choose to ignore it. This is like talking to a brick wall...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And to believers every shadow is proof.

No. It's not. Personal experiences are subjective evidence. They are unverifiable, usually unrepeatable and boil down to nothing but personal opinion. Objective evidence is verifiable by outside parties, repeatable, testable, etc. Objective evidence is factual, subjective evidence is not.

Looking at objective evidence and accepting it is a personal experience. You cannot escape it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a very clear and concise argument, you just choose to ignore it. This is like talking to a brick wall...

As I said You have no arguement & I'm bored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And is therefore useless.

Useless :D ??

It's the basis for all knowledge. It's how we learn to interact with the world.... It's how we make observations. It's only useless for the fundamentalist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at objective evidence and accepting it is a personal experience. You cannot escape it.

Wrong way round. You can look at something objective and accept it as a personal experience, but that doesn't mean personal experience is objective evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Useless :D ??

It's the basis for all knowledge. It's how we learn to interact with the world.... It's how we make observations. It's only useless for the fundamentalist.

No it isn't. The way we learn about the world is through an aggregate of empirical discovery. Its the sum of all scientific discovery. What it isnt, is a collection of things people thought they might have seen.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with memory is that it is not an exact recording of an event like people think it is. Memories can, and often do, change over time. Also what one person experiences and attributes to the paranormal maybe just be something that they are not familiar with or something they misidentified, etc.

And to add, there is no reason for belief in "spirit" outside of religion. It's not testable, observable, or even quantifiable.

You are incorrect. It is all of those things. What it is not is controllable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said You have no arguement & I'm bored.

Repeating a falsehood does not make it true. Enjoy being bored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are incorrect. It is all of those things. What it is not is controllable.

Are you saying that spirit is all of those things? If so, I simply ask, prove it. But you and I have done that dance before. No need to rehash it here. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying that spirit is all of those things? If so, I simply ask, prove it. But you and I have done that dance before. No need to rehash it here. :tu:

It's predictable

I predict people will see spirits in the future

It's quantifiable

A certain percentage of people see spirits

It's testable

I can run polls and gather statistics about how many people them see and what attributes they have.

It's observable

I can see spirits I have a relationship with several so do many other people. Some are fakers but some really do. I bet you can meet one yourself if you really wanted to. How is that not observable?

I'm not sure what you are looking for other than someone being able to produce a spirit. I don't think spirits are controllable.

Edited by Seeker79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's predictable

I predict people will see spirits in the future

Not what is meant by predictability. More like, if condition x is satisfied, then y will occur.

It's quantifiable

A certain percentage of people see spirits

Spirit itself, not perception of spirit. What is it made of, how does it react to its environment, what effect does x have on it?

It's testable

I can run polls and gather statistics about how many people them see and what attributes they have.

But then you are not testing spirit itself, but again perception of it.

It's observable

I can see spirits I have a relationship with several so do many other people. Some are fakers but some really do. I bet you can meet one yourself if you really wanted to. How is that not observable?

I'm not sure what you are looking for other than someone being able to produce a spirit. I don't think spirits are controllable.

So how can I see spirits? Seriously. I'm not being factious here. I must admit I often see you talking about OOBE I am a bit curious. PM me about it.

Edited by Imaginarynumber1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.