oujia board experience

[mouseman004]

Thats not really much of a basis, senses can be decieved easily and we are all very capable of tricking ourselves, particulalrly when we put ourselves in a more suseptable state. I mean there is no sustainable or quantifiable evidence and its a lot of these experiences are usually easily explained simply with a general understanding of the mind. That is my point.





See here lies the problem...you say that other things can give an explanation to these occurances, you are aware of that. You however have no real reason to believe in ghosts and your reasoning for doing so is that you believe what you believe. Sure you are entitled to believe whatever you want, no matter how ridiculous and you are free to ignore evidence that suggests otherwise.

She said she has had personal experiences meaning that she has seen or felt something before, so is that not sustainable evidence in and of itself? Hypothetically, if I have personally seen a ghost, are you going to suggest that it is simply my mind playing tricks on me, even though you have no personal experience with what I have seen or felt?

[straightXed]

She said she has had personal experiences meaning that she has seen or felt something before, so is that not sustainable evidence in and of itself?

not really no.

Hypothetically, if I have personally seen a ghost, are you going to suggest that it is simply my mind playing tricks on me, even though you have no personal experience with what I have seen or felt?

I would suggest looking at that as a very probable reason that you think you saw a ghost. I would definitely point you toward studies that offer more reasoning and objectiveness instead of acting like i should just accept your belief and not put my own beliefs on the matter forward. Its ridiculous that we have to somehow tip toe around spiritual and religious beliefs to the point that i shouldn't suggest other more logical reasons for said belief. If after looking at such reasoning you still flat out want to ignore it without entertaining alternative ideas then thats fine. But it is pretty much like closing your eyes and pretending it isn't there.

[mouseman004]

not really no.



I would suggest looking at that as a very probable reason that you think you saw a ghost. I would definitely point you toward studies that offer more reasoning and objectiveness instead of acting like i should just accept your belief and not put my own beliefs on the matter forward. Its ridiculous that we have to somehow tip toe around spiritual and religious beliefs to the point that i shouldn't suggest other more logical reasons for said belief. If after looking at such reasoning you still flat out want to ignore it without entertaining alternative ideas then thats fine. But it is pretty much like closing your eyes and pretending it isn't there.

I didn't ask you to accept belief without putting your own forward, nor did I say anybody had to tip toe around spiritual or religious beliefs. I am just trying to understand what your idea of sustainable evidence is. There are studies out there suggesting that ghosts, and things of the like do not exist, while at the same time there are studies and evidence out there that suggest the opposite. So if I physically see something, am I supposed to think "oh there is evidence to suggest that what I just saw with my own eyes is not real" and forget that I saw anything at all? And if I look at other reasoning and deem it to not apply to the current situation, that doesn't really seem like I am "ignoring" it, or closing my eyes and pretending it isn't there.

[straightXed]

I didn't ask you to accept belief without putting your own forward, nor did I say anybody had to tip toe around spiritual or religious beliefs. I am just trying to understand what your idea of sustainable evidence is. There are studies out there suggesting that ghosts, and things of the like do not exist, while at the same time there are studies and evidence out there that suggest the opposite. So if I physically see something, am I supposed to think "oh there is evidence to suggest that what I just saw with my own eyes is not real" and forget that I saw anything at all? And if I look at other reasoning and deem it to not apply to the current situation, that doesn't really seem like I am "ignoring" it, or closing my eyes and pretending it isn't there.

I never said you said any of those things but was refering to the nature of the response i was given when i drew a comparison between two things. Not sure why you are veering away from that to be honest. But the point remains that i am not saying anyone has to believe what i believe at all am i? I have not suggested forgetting seeing anything at all have i? Very strange that you would suggest i am saying that. If there is evidence to suggest something isn't as it seems i would suggest taking it on board and examining it so it becomes more sustainable. You have to understand i asked what the basis for belief in ghosts is, i mean if i said to you i believe humans can fly and go invisable and even shoot lasers out their eyes and you asked me why i believe that. If i responded by saying because i have seen it are you going to think that is really a sustainable basis for things? Or are you going to be immensely doubtful of my claims? If you then point me to a lengthy and well rounded list of studies that really tackle the problem of why i am able to dellude myself in such a way and i basically refuse to take those points on without providing any form of well rounded counter argument other than "i believe what i believe", would you not see that as closing my eyes to well researched ideas and ignoring them purely because they don't fit with what i currently believe? If not , why not?

I think, that in a sensible and objective mind, the studies that suggest ghosts do not exist far out wiegh the studies that suggest they do, further more the studies that suggest they don't seem to have much more depth, are able to encompass far more angles, can execute a much higher probability of being accurate, draw a far more sustainable conclusion and simply don't seem to obscure things as much in an attempt to make a forced conclusion.

So with all that in mind, what exactly is your question, because i have just essentially typed the same thing twice and i fail to see what you are suggesting i have failed to say or do. All i am seeing is you drawing a few of your own conclusions that don't entirely relate to what i have said at all.

Whats the bottom line?

[mouseman004]

I never said you said any of those things but was refering to the nature of the response i was given when i drew a comparison between two things. Not sure why you are veering away from that to be honest.

You quoted my comment when you said those things, so I could only assume they were in response to what I said.

But the point remains that i am not saying anyone has to believe what i believe at all am i? I have not suggested forgetting seeing anything at all have i? Very strange that you would suggest i am saying that. If there is evidence to suggest something isn't as it seems i would suggest taking it on board and examining it so it becomes more sustainable. You have to understand i asked what the basis for belief in ghosts is, i mean if i said to you i believe humans can fly and go invisable and even shoot lasers out their eyes and you asked me why i believe that. If i responded by saying because i have seen it are you going to think that is really a sustainable basis for things?

Unless I severely misunderstood what you initially posted in response to Miss Smog, it seemed as though you were suggesting that her experiences were simply the results of other more rational explanations and by beleiving what she believed, it was as if she was ignoring those rational explanations. You dismissed her claims, and to me anyways, tried to make it seem like her beliefs were invalid simply because you did not share them. The point I was trying to make was that just because she beleived she was a part of a paranormal event does not mean that she was ignoring the other explanations that could have caused the event. Perhaps while wieghing those explanations she deemed that what she experienced was indeed paranormal?

So with all that in mind, what exactly is your question, because i have just essentially typed the same thing twice and i fail to see what you are suggesting i have failed to say or do. All i am seeing is you drawing a few of your own conclusions that don't entirely relate to what i have said at all.

You did not repeat the same thing a second time, there was much more said in this response than there was in your initial response, perhaps maybe by elaborating on your original points I understand better what you were trying to say? And to be honest, I don't believe that anything I asked was off topic. I took your responses and asked questions based on those responses in an attempt to understand more of what you were trying to say. And you have answered my question of what you thought could be considered sustainable evidence, so I understand the point you were trying to make there.

Whats the bottom line?

The bottom line is that I do not agree with your conclusion that believing that you have seen something paranormal, or even believing that ghosts exist, is simply the result of ignoring more rational explanations of an event, or "closing your eyes and pretending the other explanations aren't there". I believe that often there are no rational explanations for certain events. I personally believe in ghosts and the paranormal, HOWEVER, I am a skeptic and if I believe that I have been a part of something paranormal, I will try to find any other possible explanation possible for the event. So if I believe I have seen a ghost, I am not ignoring other explanations, I have just deemed that there aren't other explanations that apply to that particular situation. I am not asking you to take what I say and ignore your own personal beliefs towards the matter, I am simply asking you to not just dismiss my claims by suggesting I have ignored other explanations. Perhaps I took a really roundabout way of saying that, and I suppose I apologize for that, but that is the point I was trying to make.

[straightXed]

You quoted my comment when you said those things, so I could only assume they were in response to what I said.

Your comments focus was my response to smogs post, i continued to focus and that response as it was the active subject matter. You could quite easily and more accurately assume that i was further discussing the elements of my response and what instigated it as that was what you brought up with me.

Unless I severely misunderstood what you initially posted in response to Miss Smog

At this point that seems quite probable

it seemed as though you were suggesting that her experiences were simply the results of other more rational explanations and by beleiving what she believed

I was suggesting there are much more solid things to take into consideration before being dismissive and simply having the stance of "i believe what i believe so there". But this was not in my initial response. My initial response was a simply post where i drew comparison and this seemed to light a fire under someones ass.

it was as if she was ignoring those rational explanations.

I directly asked her what her basis was, her response focussed more on her having the right to believe whatever she wanted...i never suggested she didn't have that right if you read through it again. But the basis boiled down to her believing what she believes, thats fine but it doesn't really give much of a response as to why she believes it. She even concedes other possibilities and reasons for her experiences, if thats so then why have such a firm belief in ghosts and why make a rant about having the right to believe things when i never said she or anyone couldn't believe it, i just questioned why...seems like an odd reaction to me.

You dismissed her claims, and to me anyways, tried to make it seem like her beliefs were invalid simply because you did not share them.

I asked about her beliefs, she acted insulted. I dismissed the reasoning of the beliefs as she really didn't bother to answer with validity or maybe just couldn't.

The point I was trying to make was that just because she beleived she was a part of a paranormal event does not mean that she was ignoring the other explanations that could have caused the event. Perhaps while wieghing those explanations she deemed that what she experienced was indeed paranormal?

Thats why i asked what her basis was, she failed to answer with any kind of substance...you can see that, its still there.

You did not repeat the same thing a second time, there was much more said in this response than there was in your initial response,

It is pretty much the same thing, same stance, same viewpoint, same argument.

perhaps maybe by elaborating on your original points I understand better what you were trying to say?

Well can you?

And to be honest, I don't believe that anything I asked was off topic.

I didn't say off topic just that you are veering away from your initial line of questioning which you did veer from as it was to do with my response to her and not focussing on you at all. You haven't put any opinion on the matter of believing in ghosts forward, you are simply discussing my response to her. If you would like to discuss your beliefs of ghosts or even play the part of a believer (a less skeptical one) in order to really test which side of the argument holds more validity, i would happily engage.

I took your responses and asked questions based on those responses in an attempt to understand more of what you were trying to say. And you have answered my question of what you thought could be considered sustainable evidence, so I understand the point you were trying to make there.

refer to the point i already made in the begining of this post where you switched to the responses i made somehow being focussed at your beliefs which you said was your only option. Of course we both know you haven't really put an opinion forward other than i was wrong in the nature of my response.

The bottom line is that I do not agree with your conclusion that believing that you have seen something paranormal, or even believing that ghosts exist, is simply the result of ignoring more rational explanations of an event, or "closing your eyes and pretending the other explanations aren't there".

I never said that was my conclusion, i will reiterate once again, i believe that the response i got clearly shows no real effort or desire to take other ideas onboard. I believe that an explanation such as i believe what i believe just seeks to sheild the belief within sme kind of socially enforced idea that its wrong to question spiritual beliefs. That they somehow don't really need to have a legitimate explanation. The attitude certainly does go hand in hand with those that pay no legitimate head to such rational explanations and go on to make rather unrational explanations that skip and dance but completely miss any basis. I would happily read and consider someone who gives time to put forward an actual reasoning why they believe in ghosts instead of just acting persecuted because i asked and start screaming that its their right to believe it.

I believe that often there are no rational explanations for certain events.

Why can't someone explain this rationally? Why do you believe no one has rational explanations? Even if they are wqrong they can still be rational...on both sides their could and should be rational argument that doesn't hide behind the idea that seeking an answer is somehow offensive.

I personally believe in ghosts and the paranormal, HOWEVER, I am a skeptic and if I believe that I have been a part of something paranormal, I will try to find any other possible explanation possible for the event.

Great, so why do you belive in ghosts? If you exhaust any other rational thought you believe its quite rational to assume its a ghost? if that is correct, why a ghost...if something cannot be explained why does a suitable explanation seem to be the idea of a ghost?

So if I believe I have seen a ghost, I am not ignoring other explanations, I have just deemed that there aren't other explanations that apply to that particular situation.

Well no other explanations you know of...why isn't it aliens, or somekind of conspiracy? Why is ghosts the answer?

But this is of course relevent to you, this ignoring other explanations is not what is initially happening here. You are putting forward what you think and i am questioning things etc. Rather different response to the conversation with smog. You have to realise my response to her was specific to her, i am not saying you are ignoring anything am i? I think you took my response to her to also apply to you but you are not saying the same things she said. This kind of puts the bottom line out the window.

I am not asking you to take what I say and ignore your own personal beliefs towards the matter, I am simply asking you to not just dismiss my claims by suggesting I have ignored other explanations.

And as it readily visible in the text i have written i have not dismissed your claims but have engaged them and asked you about them. You have not responded with "i believe what i believe" as an explanation or basis which i really hope you can see to be part of a response that really conjured up an impression of not really looking to be open to any other plausible outcome. I mean the reaction i got was that to ask for reasoning was wrong and made a mockery of peoples beliefs in a socially unjust way. This is another element which draws comparison with religious fanatics!

Perhaps I took a really roundabout way of saying that, and I suppose I apologize for that, but that is the point I was trying to make.

Ok but its a point that didn't need making as the things i said in the posts to smog apply to her post and not to you at all.