It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How Can Skeptics Still Deny the Supernatrual?

page: 3
40
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: jaws1975

a reply to: Pardon?



Personally I'd turn the thread question around and ask why are there still believers in the supernatural?



Why would you do that?


I like to think that we've evolved enough mentally not to attribute things we can't explain at this moment as being supernatural.

And then there's the evidence thing.
Of which there's precisely none.

But then, there are people who believe in all sorts of nonsense so perhaps I'm being a bit too optimistic.




posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: LoneCloudHopper2

Which of the many claimed supernatural phenomena are we supposed to cease denying?

Any of them? All of them? Or only some of them?

Are we supposed to believe in ghosts or in people's memories of past lives, or both at the same time?

Should we believe that some people can foretell the future, or that some people can alter the future by magical means, or both at the same time?

Should we put our trust in astrology, in numerology or in palmistry, or do they all work?

Does the mind have the power of control over matter, or are human beings simply the playthings of cosmic forces?

Do we need to sort all these contradictions out, at least, before we decide what we believe, or doesn't it matter?

I need a little guidance here.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: LoneCloudHopper2

You stated your thoughts very well, and while I agree with you, I also know that skeptics will never truly believe without a personal experience, or seeing something with their own eyes happening to someone else that they know and trust.

We can try to convince people it is real until the cow jumps over the moon, but it's just not going to happen.


I'm a true believer because of my personal experiences all throughout my life, but not everyone has had paranormal experiences. We are all on different "learning levels", so we just have to sit back and allow the skeptics to catch up.


Their day will come... sooner or later, maybe not even until their next lifetime.


S&F on a great topic/thread.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: sheepslayer247

Well, many who call themselves 'skeptic' on other sites are far less fair and open-minded than found here on ATS. You are right that such skeptic are naysayers, not intellectually honest skeptics.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

Those may have been bad examples. I took them from TV shows I saw in the past and cannot link sources to them here. The one about the brain responding to being stared at was from a well-respected Canadian science program called "The Nature of Things with David Suzuki." They also did an episode about a scientific study which explored luck over chance, by having people concentrate on balls landing randomly into certain slots and found that more often the balls would align more the way that the people mentally desired them to.

A peer-reviewed journal in psychology has published a paper that presents scientific evidence for precognition. The paper, by Daryl Bem of Cornell University, is called “Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect."


The paper purports to show that a choice that you make in a computer test can be influenced by stimuli you receive after you’ve already made the choice. This implies you have some way, consciously or unconsciously, of detecting things that haven’t yet happened.


dbem.ws...
whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...

The evidence is staggering, whether or not it all counts as 'scientific evidence.' Most people do not weight what is or is not real by what science currently believes or doesn't believe. We have reasoning, as well as inherent traits such as instincts and intuition. The businessmen I have talked with have told me that success is more to do with psychic feelings and those who "have it" are the ones who do well. It's really very elementary for many people. I do not understanding why it is so puzzling to non-believers.

Care to explain Edgar Cayce?
edit on 2-10-2014 by LoneCloudHopper2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Those who do not believe in God have to make up stories to explain away how the universe and life exist without God, and at that point you can explain away anything.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: LoneCloudHopper2

The reason why skeptics are skeptics is because of the lack of proof. For example, in my past, I have had experiences where I could feel a now-ex's emotional state, yet not be anywhere near the person. My proof was that after I got the feeling, I called her and found her sniffling into the phone, which matched the emotion I was feeling. It's not proof.

I myself am a skeptic in some aspects (for example, you say you can move a psi-wheel? Great! Try putting it under a clear glass bowl to reduce the chances that a draft is moving the wheel).

Now, just because it's labeled as the paranormal, doesn't mean you cannot get proof in a scientific manner. For example, I am currently working on a way to astral project consciously. What I do, every night, is I keep track of which of my methods work, what time they work, and how far I am able to remember. Based on my data, I can tell you that a projection is likely to occur at 2:00am-3:00am, when the room is about body temperature. I had a hypothesis, am in the process of testing my hypothesis (using a warm/cold/uncomfortable environment as variables), and eventually at the end of the year will compile my findings, and plan for future experiments.

In short: It comes down to a matter of perception. I've never had a problem with my Ouija board, despite doing everything you are not supposed to do with it, so by default, I tend to be a skeptic towards anyone who claimed demons started haunting them because of using it.

When I was a kid, I was called a liar for saying I can dream in color (back then, the claim was all dreams were black and white). Seeing as they weren't in my brain, I had all the proof that I needed

-fossilera



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 09:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

Excuse me? Sciency sounding words?

You try explaining quantum entanglement to a laymen, then come back to imply the blame is somehow on my end for "using sciency sounding words"

My point was, the general population is not ready for this, whether you call it supernatural or science, they'll likely hear "magic" either way. Sciency sounding words, to them maybe, but even quantum entanglement is latin to some, yet i'm supposedly to blame for not mastering the vocabulary, LOL.

Thank you though for insinuating im just a retard who uses words that sound clever to come across as SMART. You're not as bright as you might like to think though, seeing as you completely missed the point of my post and rather saw it as an excuse to attack the messenger. Weak



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 10:29 PM
link   
a reply to: jaws1975
The wiki link about Eben Alexander (author of Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon’s Journey into the Afterlife) is a perfect example why the supernatural topic always makes me tired. After reading it I came to the same conclusion I always do in this matter: People think what what they want to think. In the case lf Eben Alexander, the skeptics say one thing and Alexander says another. Neither has PROOF. The paranormal is a cesspool and is why I don't like it.

en.wikipedia.org - Eben Alexander (author)...

Evidence suggests our universe has veyr strange propertiesy. These MIGHT extend to our mind. However, of what I've seen, there're much better explanations for things than God or angels or whatrever. I think people choose those explanations because it makes them feel more secure inside. It feels good to know a good person will go to heaven and a very bad person will be punished somehow. It feels good to think there's a divine justice. It also feels good to think there's a purpose to things which is far beyond the mundane chaotic physical universe we're familiiar with. I think it also feels good to think we'll enter a new reality after death, one in which none of the pains we live with in this one are present.

Name one person who contemplates with happiness the excruciating and grating death of a young adult who had been living with an extremely painful disease their entire brief life. Inventing an afterlife where this young adult is reincarnated and given another chance or is simply sent to a better place puts a warmness in our heart. The idea all the suffering and pain in our world isn't permanent and all is ultimately fair is like sweet nectar to our mind.

I can't prove there's no God. I can't prove there's not a supernatural. But I do think naturalism is a suitable explanation for things. Complicating death by adding a afterlife or God is unnecessary. In some cases it just serves our selifsh need to be immortal, in others it's just there to give us relief in challenging circumstnaces.

Let me ask: What about the other creatures on Earth? Do they get an afterlife too? They've suffered just like us. Or do they just die?

Where in evolutionary science is an afterlife required?

The only rationale I can somewhat accept for supernatural beliefs is when people are in trying times and need them to find some relief. I've had moments in my life where I wanted to criticize people for their beliefs, but I stopped because I felt sorry for them. Why should I take away something they use to cope? Can I offfer better? No. I know this world can put us into bad places. For some, perhaps religion or spiritualism is the only answer.
edit on 2-10-2014 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 03:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Calalini
I am a skeptical believer. I've been an 'investigator' into the mysteries for nearly three decades. I've had several epic paranormal experiences. The reason why I doubt most other people and their paranormal experience is because most people are terribly biased and their stories aren't very reliable.

I would never expect a skeptic to believe my stories. There are all sorts of mentally ill people in this world, and just downright kooks that will believe in anything. You know what's worse than a skeptic? A person who has a paranormal experience, and suddenly they make the jump to true believer. "I caught an EVP. Know I know ghosts are real". This is why the paranormal field is full of the worst kind of idiots.

In order to be truly intellectual honest you must question everything. Including your deepest held beliefs and experiences. If you are jumping the gun from experience to belief system, you are not truly being honest with yourself.

No offence, but you brought up Soul Weight and other topics that have been discussed, debunked, and put away for years now. Soul Weight is total garbage. It's been brought up repeatedly on ATS, and picked apart ad naseum. There is no real proof to it whatsoever. When you use garbage like this as an argument that the paranormal is 'real', no one with any real objectively is going to take you seriously.

Edgar Cayce. I've read every book about him and studied him intensely. The guy was an enigma, no question, and seemed to be genuinely having a strange experience, but he was also wrong with many of his predictions (of course, the true believers have all sorts of conspiracy arguments disputing this), and many of his cures can be explained by placebo. Believers will never entertain these explanations though. In their minds, he was a prophet!

Should a true paranormal skeptic be admonished from reading your post? I seriously doubt it. You're the other side of the coin from a total skeptic. The believer who will believe anything. The fact that you believe in Soul Weight, without a question or any real research into the matter, shows this to be true. Again, you can't blame other people for being skeptical. Despite the fact that I am a paranormal investigator myself, other people's stories and encounters bore me to tears because I know 99% of these people are about as reliable as UFO witnesses. It doesn't take much for many people to allow their own brains to fall out.

You should worry less about skeptics, and concentrate on your own subjective beliefs. I couldn't care less whether skeptics believe the paranormal or not. If one has not had a paranormal experience for themselves, it is wrong to admonish them for being skeptical.


I actually really like what you said here and agree with much of it. I am very much the same as you; an experienced person of the supernatural who questions other people's experiences. I don't blame you for drawing the wrong conclusion about me being a gullible believer because I did use a couple points off the top of my head which I hadn't taken the time to better research. It was quite late (or early in the morning after my night job) when I wrote that, but that is no excuse. Your points are quite good. I wasn't trying to attack skeptics, if that's how it came across; just wanted to express my frustration with naysayers online who call themselves 'skeptics' who boldly assert what they 'know' isn't true. I think that if I'd waited a day and put more care into what I wrote we probably would have been in agreement on many things.



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 03:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: LoneCloudHopper2

Which of the many claimed supernatural phenomena are we supposed to cease denying?

Any of them? All of them? Or only some of them?

Are we supposed to believe in ghosts or in people's memories of past lives, or both at the same time?

Should we believe that some people can foretell the future, or that some people can alter the future by magical means, or both at the same time?

Should we put our trust in astrology, in numerology or in palmistry, or do they all work?

Does the mind have the power of control over matter, or are human beings simply the playthings of cosmic forces?

Do we need to sort all these contradictions out, at least, before we decide what we believe, or doesn't it matter?

I need a little guidance here.


I failed to better articulate what I meant to say in my original post. I was speaking to naysayers (most people who call themselves 'skeptics'.) My issue was that these people still state that no supernatural activity exists, period, and that anyone who believes in such things is either stupid or crazy. I'd intended to point out that they do not know what is not real and I fail to understand how they can continue to think this way.



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 03:41 AM
link   
I don't think that the realm of science will ever accept something as real if it cannot be seen, studied and measured. Science is rooted in the physical world alone and would naturally reject notions which cannot be analyzed in a lab. Psychology was an attempt by some to branch science into the realm of the mind, but its growth, I feel, is somewhat stinted now. It has too few creative minds to push it forward these days, branches off into those who follow Freud or Jung, and focuses too much on treating the symptom and not the problem by trying to treat mental problems are physical ones in order to receive more respect from the scientific community.

Parascience has high hopes of proving (scientifically) the supernatural to the scientific community, but I doubt this will be accomplished by standard means (it hasn't so far.) When parascience can find the driven minds and receive the funding to build new technologies which can actually scan and read non-corporeal entities (like extrasensory perception) then the labs will have something they can finally see, study and measure. Then, science will take it seriously.



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: 00001100
Those who do not believe in God have to make up stories to explain away how the universe and life exist without God, and at that point you can explain away anything.


And conversely those who believe that god made everything need not bother with wanting to know anything else.
And because of that quest for knowledge you have the ability to post your "wisdom" on the internet instead of drawing a picture of it on a wall.



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: LoneCloudHopper2
I don't think that the realm of science will ever accept something as real if it cannot be seen, studied and measured. Science is rooted in the physical world alone and would naturally reject notions which cannot be analyzed in a lab. Psychology was an attempt by some to branch science into the realm of the mind, but its growth, I feel, is somewhat stinted now. It has too few creative minds to push it forward these days, branches off into those who follow Freud or Jung, and focuses too much on treating the symptom and not the problem by trying to treat mental problems are physical ones in order to receive more respect from the scientific community.


Science accepts anything that can be observed. Something being observed doesn't have to interact with our senses. Science observes x-rays but we can't see or detect them with our bodies. So just because humans cannot detect them with our senses doesn't mean that science won't accept something as real. This may very well end up being the case with the paranormal. You shouldn't write science off just because it hasn't gotten around to proving your pet theory yet. GOOD science takes time to develop and become accepted. Bad science is the type that we see that results in confirmation bias and pseudo-sciences.


Parascience has high hopes of proving (scientifically) the supernatural to the scientific community, but I doubt this will be accomplished by standard means (it hasn't so far.) When parascience can find the driven minds and receive the funding to build new technologies which can actually scan and read non-corporeal entities (like extrasensory perception) then the labs will have something they can finally see, study and measure. Then, science will take it seriously.


You have to abandon all preconceived notions you have about the paranormal first. You need to let science sit back and detect, then interpret the results from there.



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid

Says the guy who constantly sources some really crackpot sources (or even sources himself) all the time. You do know that wikipedia puts its sources at the bottom of the page? The number indexes next to the text indicate what source it is from. So if you disbelieve anything written, you can go see where it came from. Much better than the crap sources you always post.



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: LoneCloudHopper2

We should not overlook the studies done that show stimulating parts of the brain give spiritual experiences and duplicates much of the mysterious phenomenon also.



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: LoneCloudHopper2
I don't think that the realm of science will ever accept something as real if it cannot be seen, studied and measured. Science is rooted in the physical world alone and would naturally reject notions which cannot be analyzed in a lab. Psychology was an attempt by some to branch science into the realm of the mind, but its growth, I feel, is somewhat stinted now. It has too few creative minds to push it forward these days, branches off into those who follow Freud or Jung, and focuses too much on treating the symptom and not the problem by trying to treat mental problems are physical ones in order to receive more respect from the scientific community.

Parascience has high hopes of proving (scientifically) the supernatural to the scientific community, but I doubt this will be accomplished by standard means (it hasn't so far.) When parascience can find the driven minds and receive the funding to build new technologies which can actually scan and read non-corporeal entities (like extrasensory perception) then the labs will have something they can finally see, study and measure. Then, science will take it seriously.


Unfortunately para"science" needs to set real testable hypotheses to base this research upon.
These then need to be reproducible before anything can be taken further.
Simply asserting that the paranormal/supernatural is real but we have no way of proving or testing it doesn't cut the mustard I'm afraid.
At the moment all of its eggs are in the testimonial and belief baskets.



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: LoneCloudHopper2
a reply to: sheepslayer247

Well, many who call themselves 'skeptic' on other sites are far less fair and open-minded than found here on ATS. You are right that such skeptic are naysayers, not intellectually honest skeptics.


The kinds of things that are not explainable yet, like an object from a table across the room being placed quietly just in front of my feet as i walked in the dark to my bedroom after turning off the lights. Just so my foot would touch but not step on or trip.

Pictures removed from walls and aligned at the end of the bed in a nice row...that sort of thing which sometimes I get a wave of then a dry spell for years.
It is real, clearly but there has to be an explanation so eventually we will know the answers. Could dimensions explain it, I will just wait because in time all answers will come.



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 01:32 PM
link   
There is just some things you cannot explain, it's just utter stupidity.



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: LoneCloudHopper2

My question is, why are you so concerned what those whom you call skeptic think anyway? Why not just believe what you believe, and leave it at that? Or must everyone see the world exactly as you do? Why not just live and let live? Let's face it, there will probably always be others who don't accept what we believe as truth, so why waste time trying to convince them otherwise?



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join