Forums > Social Discussion > Your Opinions on the Paranormal?
Login/Join to ParticipateBRONZE Member
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
Posted:
I don't want stories actually.
What I am looking for is do you believe?
If so, what do you believe in?
Do your beliefs stop at ghosts or do you think demons, werewolves, vampires are real?
What about possession?
UFO's and alien abductions?
What about those things that people can supposedly do? Magic (real, not David Copperfield)? Telepathy? Clair/Audiovoyance?
etc..etc...etc...
I ask because I recently resumed my role as a paranormal investigator. I did it years ago, and recently resumed it because it is something I really loved doing. I work with a group of people who seem to be more embracing and *want* to believe in it so much that I do not think they apply as much logic and science. Me, I apply logic and science until I run out of ideas and then still won't definitively say yes, just that it *could* be.
What I have noticed is that those who want to believe, find explainations for their exsistence where they don't really exsist. On the other hand those who choose not to believe will make up stupid explainations that make no sense to debunk something.
It can be quite hard to deal with.
So...where do you fit into all of htis and what do you think?
Thanks!
P~
I don't want stories actually.
What I am looking for is do you believe?
If so, what do you believe in?
Do your beliefs stop at ghosts or do you think demons, werewolves, vampires are real?
What about possession?
UFO's and alien abductions?
What about those things that people can supposedly do? Magic (real, not David Copperfield)? Telepathy? Clair/Audiovoyance?
etc..etc...etc...
I ask because I recently resumed my role as a paranormal investigator. I did it years ago, and recently resumed it because it is something I really loved doing. I work with a group of people who seem to be more embracing and *want* to believe in it so much that I do not think they apply as much logic and science. Me, I apply logic and science until I run out of ideas and then still won't definitively say yes, just that it *could* be.
What I have noticed is that those who want to believe, find explainations for their exsistence where they don't really exsist. On the other hand those who choose not to believe will make up stupid explainations that make no sense to debunk something.
It can be quite hard to deal with.
So...where do you fit into all of htis and what do you think?
Thanks!
P~
Pele
Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir
"Oooh look! A pub!" -exclaimed after recovering from a stupid fall
"And for the decadence of art, nothing beats a roaring fire." -TMK
BRONZE Member
enthusiast
363 posts
Location: manchester uk
enthusiast
363 posts
Location: manchester uk
Posted:
i'ed disagree about dawkins not haveing an open mind he says over and over again that he is willing to beleave anything so long as it can be demonstrated with evidence. the reason he doesn't accept religion is because it requires you to beleave without or even sometimes inspite of the evidence. as a scientist hes unwilling to do that. and even if he was that would still leave him with 100,000's of religions to pick from and at most only one of them can be true.
actualy i'ed argue hes more open minded than most because he makes a point of ensureing his beleafs are falsifyable (he explains how someone could simply and difinitively prove him wrong) for example with the dousers if they had actualy found the water in the tests they would have shown he was wrong but he still put his beleafs on the line.
where as with many of the supporters of the paranormal do the exact opposite going to great lenghts to ensure they dont find them selfs in a situation in which there claimes could be disproved.
for example with religion evidence against his position would be something like the following and amputies lim regrowing, something huge god decending from the sky for example, a lack of junk DNA in the genome of a large animal and so on.
also i'ed like to point out that his position of "i wont beleave in something until i've seen evidence for it" is the only acceptable stance to take. for example if i said i was god you would demand proof BEFORE you beleaved you wouldnt just beleave me until someone disprove that i was god which is actualy imposable (because as god i could just want you to think i wasn't to test your faith).
evidence comes first belef comes after
EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1187289285)
i'ed disagree about dawkins not haveing an open mind he says over and over again that he is willing to beleave anything so long as it can be demonstrated with evidence. the reason he doesn't accept religion is because it requires you to beleave without or even sometimes inspite of the evidence. as a scientist hes unwilling to do that. and even if he was that would still leave him with 100,000's of religions to pick from and at most only one of them can be true.
actualy i'ed argue hes more open minded than most because he makes a point of ensureing his beleafs are falsifyable (he explains how someone could simply and difinitively prove him wrong) for example with the dousers if they had actualy found the water in the tests they would have shown he was wrong but he still put his beleafs on the line.
where as with many of the supporters of the paranormal do the exact opposite going to great lenghts to ensure they dont find them selfs in a situation in which there claimes could be disproved.
for example with religion evidence against his position would be something like the following and amputies lim regrowing, something huge god decending from the sky for example, a lack of junk DNA in the genome of a large animal and so on.
also i'ed like to point out that his position of "i wont beleave in something until i've seen evidence for it" is the only acceptable stance to take. for example if i said i was god you would demand proof BEFORE you beleaved you wouldnt just beleave me until someone disprove that i was god which is actualy imposable (because as god i could just want you to think i wasn't to test your faith).
evidence comes first belef comes after
EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1187289285)
My nunchucks vital statictics 
weight: 500g
handle lenght: 16 inches
chain length: 2 inches
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
ummm no...When I went to school, I learned about many things. Much of which I hadn't seen or seen evidence for. Bacteria. Believed in germs before I saw one. Also saw what germs could do before I saw one.
ummm no...When I went to school, I learned about many things. Much of which I hadn't seen or seen evidence for. Bacteria. Believed in germs before I saw one. Also saw what germs could do before I saw one.
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
BRONZE Member
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Posted:
to be fair thats besides the point, there is penty of evidence if you ask to see some. also children are pre-programmed to believe figures of authourity because of the dangers inherent to trial and error at such a vulnerable state.
the question I worry about is the second coming of christ... if he did appear on earth who would believe him? would christians demand proof? or believe on faith because requiring proof would be a double standard.
faith appears to be a tricky concept, I think I'll leave it alone for a while...
now ghosts .... I think they're slightly different. people see "things" that haven't been explained yet and paranormal investigators use scientific apperatus to "search" for them. I think it's possible that they are natural effects that we haven't yet fully uncovered the reasons behind. if you substitue the word "ghost" for "unexplained phenomenon" you are closer to the mark especially for untampered photographs etc. I feel the act of doctored images to "prove" the existence of ghosts only does more harm.
those that talk to the dead... I honestly believe they are just plain crazy... (but then I have no proof so I'm not set in stone
)
to be fair thats besides the point, there is penty of evidence if you ask to see some. also children are pre-programmed to believe figures of authourity because of the dangers inherent to trial and error at such a vulnerable state.
the question I worry about is the second coming of christ... if he did appear on earth who would believe him? would christians demand proof? or believe on faith because requiring proof would be a double standard.
faith appears to be a tricky concept, I think I'll leave it alone for a while...
now ghosts .... I think they're slightly different. people see "things" that haven't been explained yet and paranormal investigators use scientific apperatus to "search" for them. I think it's possible that they are natural effects that we haven't yet fully uncovered the reasons behind. if you substitue the word "ghost" for "unexplained phenomenon" you are closer to the mark especially for untampered photographs etc. I feel the act of doctored images to "prove" the existence of ghosts only does more harm.
those that talk to the dead... I honestly believe they are just plain crazy... (but then I have no proof so I'm not set in stone
) A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
You refer to the "orbs"?
It's generally considered to basically be the flash reflected off of dust or rain. The intricacies of pixilation in digital cameras means you can get some fairly odd looking details on magnification as well. It doesn't prove they aren't ghosts, but it is suspicious that they look exactly the same as the phenomenon cursed by photographers.
Last generation ghost photographs were double exposiers, now it's pixilation artifacts. It just goes to show the importance of understanding the equipment.
Written by: Mynci
now ghosts .... I think they're slightly different. people see "things" that haven't been explained yet and paranormal investigators use scientific apperatus to "search" for them. I think it's possible that they are natural effects that we haven't yet fully uncovered the reasons behind. if you substitue the word "ghost" for "unexplained phenomenon" you are closer to the mark especially for untampered photographs etc.
You refer to the "orbs"?
It's generally considered to basically be the flash reflected off of dust or rain. The intricacies of pixilation in digital cameras means you can get some fairly odd looking details on magnification as well. It doesn't prove they aren't ghosts, but it is suspicious that they look exactly the same as the phenomenon cursed by photographers.
Last generation ghost photographs were double exposiers, now it's pixilation artifacts. It just goes to show the importance of understanding the equipment.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
BRONZE Member
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Posted:
orbs, vague shapes, whatever people decide to call them, the fact some people claim too see orbs withoout photographing them could mean they are another phenomenon (although probably not)
I'll be honest even "evidence" recorded using equipment other than cameras - temperature changes, electromagnetic interferrence.. they are exactly what they say on the tin
I think the word Ghost is and has been used throught the ages for the unexplained, strange noises (wood, metal and other materials expanding / contracting through changes in heat or being moved by wind or other factors)
orbs, vague shapes, whatever people decide to call them, the fact some people claim too see orbs withoout photographing them could mean they are another phenomenon (although probably not)
I'll be honest even "evidence" recorded using equipment other than cameras - temperature changes, electromagnetic interferrence.. they are exactly what they say on the tin
I think the word Ghost is and has been used throught the ages for the unexplained, strange noises (wood, metal and other materials expanding / contracting through changes in heat or being moved by wind or other factors)
A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
one of my teachers had a picture over Lourdes with the virgin mary-honest women...maybe not the developers though
very cool pic though
one of my teachers had a picture over Lourdes with the virgin mary-honest women...maybe not the developers though
very cool pic though
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
Mosh-mosh-mosh-mosh.
346 posts
Location: Midlands
346 posts
Location: Midlands
Posted:
Personally I've had a couple of run ins with the paranormal, so for me it's a big yes on some scores.
Ghosts, OBEs etc are all "confirmed" in my mind as being possible even if not always perceivable or comprehendable.
Vampires and Werewolves etc ? While conditions exist which mimic these, the classic '50's horror movie stylee dosn't unfortunately ... otherwise I'd be a Werewolf-Vampire-Warlock-Zombie ... which, lets face it, would be rather amazing.
As for human potential etc - the brain is used in totality, we just only consciously have access to about 10% of the functions we use. Like a computer, we only have access, normally, the apps and bits on it, but it's running smeg loads of stuff in the background that allows it just exist. Always room for improvement/growth though and I think that other senses exist, just they're not needed as we don't need to percieve the things they'd allow us too.
God/Religion etc. Could go on for hoursssssssss about that, but won't. I have my beliefs but I also think a lot of Christianity and many other religions is flawed and should be discarded. The core beliefs about how to live your life etc are usually quite universal (Don't kill, don't be an annoyance, leave peacfully etc.) it's just the added "sprinkles" about festivals, names for gods, the stories told to show the core beliefs differ.
Anyway, I'm off to ask the Fairys how to speak with dead so's I find out where Lord Lucan is in case he'd with Elvis.....so I can tell him about another truly dire "revival" of his legacy is taking place just to make money. : D
Personally I've had a couple of run ins with the paranormal, so for me it's a big yes on some scores.
Ghosts, OBEs etc are all "confirmed" in my mind as being possible even if not always perceivable or comprehendable.
Vampires and Werewolves etc ? While conditions exist which mimic these, the classic '50's horror movie stylee dosn't unfortunately ... otherwise I'd be a Werewolf-Vampire-Warlock-Zombie ... which, lets face it, would be rather amazing.
As for human potential etc - the brain is used in totality, we just only consciously have access to about 10% of the functions we use. Like a computer, we only have access, normally, the apps and bits on it, but it's running smeg loads of stuff in the background that allows it just exist. Always room for improvement/growth though and I think that other senses exist, just they're not needed as we don't need to percieve the things they'd allow us too.
God/Religion etc. Could go on for hoursssssssss about that, but won't. I have my beliefs but I also think a lot of Christianity and many other religions is flawed and should be discarded. The core beliefs about how to live your life etc are usually quite universal (Don't kill, don't be an annoyance, leave peacfully etc.) it's just the added "sprinkles" about festivals, names for gods, the stories told to show the core beliefs differ.
Anyway, I'm off to ask the Fairys how to speak with dead so's I find out where Lord Lucan is in case he'd with Elvis.....so I can tell him about another truly dire "revival" of his legacy is taking place just to make money. : D
Xbox360 Live ID - Sacred Apollyon
"Enemies you threaten make armies. Enemies you destroy make graves."
"Here is a test to see if your mission on earth is finished: If your alive it isn't."
BRONZE Member
enthusiast
363 posts
Location: manchester uk
enthusiast
363 posts
Location: manchester uk
Posted:
ummm no...When I went to school, I learned about many things. Much of which I hadn't seen or seen evidence for. Bacteria. Believed in germs before I saw one.
yes but there is evidence for bacteria that you were told about, true you didn't personaly check it out but you could have if you so wished or if you douted them. so you reasoned that unless no one had ever check it out and they were lieing to you and banking that you wouldn't call there bluff (something increadably unlikely to work with 6 billion people on the planet) it was proberly true.
if your teaches had said this is germ theory there is no evidence for it would you still beleave them? as a child yes you proberly would, we tend to beleave what were told as children no matter how strange often clining to those belefs well into adult hood. but would you beleave it if you were told it for the first time as an adult with your reasoning and critical thinking full developed?
also you said it your self you had seen evidence for the effects of germs before you learned about them.
I also saw what germs could do before I saw one.
EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1187617864)
ummm no...When I went to school, I learned about many things. Much of which I hadn't seen or seen evidence for. Bacteria. Believed in germs before I saw one.
yes but there is evidence for bacteria that you were told about, true you didn't personaly check it out but you could have if you so wished or if you douted them. so you reasoned that unless no one had ever check it out and they were lieing to you and banking that you wouldn't call there bluff (something increadably unlikely to work with 6 billion people on the planet) it was proberly true.
if your teaches had said this is germ theory there is no evidence for it would you still beleave them? as a child yes you proberly would, we tend to beleave what were told as children no matter how strange often clining to those belefs well into adult hood. but would you beleave it if you were told it for the first time as an adult with your reasoning and critical thinking full developed?
also you said it your self you had seen evidence for the effects of germs before you learned about them.
I also saw what germs could do before I saw one.
EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1187617864)
My nunchucks vital statictics
weight: 500g
handle lenght: 16 inches
chain length: 2 inches
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
I believe I've seen evidence of God and other worldly powers. Other's don't see it so.
I believe I've seen evidence of God and other worldly powers. Other's don't see it so.
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
BRONZE Member
enthusiast
363 posts
Location: manchester uk
enthusiast
363 posts
Location: manchester uk
Posted:
and this is the crux of the problem evidence not avadiable to everyone is unacceptable because we then have evidence for everything thor,zeus,yarway,911 conspiracys, earth been the center of the universers, that the earth isn't the center of the universe, unicorns, santa claus, the easter bunny. if we accept that kind of evidence it becomes imposable to determin the truth about anything.
(i refer you back to my "i am god comment" a statment purely based on evidence i can't show you)
thats the basis of dawkins (and my) position.
and this is the crux of the problem evidence not avadiable to everyone is unacceptable because we then have evidence for everything thor,zeus,yarway,911 conspiracys, earth been the center of the universers, that the earth isn't the center of the universe, unicorns, santa claus, the easter bunny. if we accept that kind of evidence it becomes imposable to determin the truth about anything.
(i refer you back to my "i am god comment" a statment purely based on evidence i can't show you)
thats the basis of dawkins (and my) position.
My nunchucks vital statictics
weight: 500g
handle lenght: 16 inches
chain length: 2 inches
BRONZE Member
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Posted:
mine is still if christ turned up for the second coming who would believe him... did anybody see the show on channel 4 last night - Jesus the muslim?
mine is still if christ turned up for the second coming who would believe him... did anybody see the show on channel 4 last night - Jesus the muslim?
A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [opinion * paranormal] we found the following existing topics.
- Forums > Your Opinions on the Paranormal? [162 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2025 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com