How Can Skeptics Still Deny the Supernatrual?

Also interesting, written by none other than Michael Shermer. He seems to have experienced a unexplainable event:

Anomalous Events That Can Shake One’s Skepticism to the Core

a reply to: malvy
I never mentioned The Uncertainty Principle, that is an entirely
different phenomenon than The Observer Effect-- Maybe you should
study QP a bit further mate.

A good example of The Observer Effect, is The Schroeder's cat Analogy,
although over simplified, it covers the basic phenomenon to a neophyte.

Not saying you are a neophyte, and not trying to offend here, but really,
I never brought up The Uncertainty Principle which has to do with
scientists apparent inability to know the exact position AND the direction and
velocity of a particle (like an electron) is going, and has further applications
such as one can observe a particle (like an electron) depending on how the
experiment is set up as either a particle or a wave. This has nothing to do
with the Observer Effect however.

Cheers.

Rebel 5

I believe in facts and I'm not a skeptic or behave the way they do and I understand how skeptics questions and asks for evidence, instead of assuming its real, which is the main reason why I avoid them. Debunker is just another name for a type of skeptic. I appreciatea your comment it was helpful. a reply to: Tangerine

I really believe what I said was correct and my description of a skeptic is one hundred percent accurate. If you don't then I guess were on two different pages and will most likely never find the middle ground. a reply to: InhaleExhale

People are still sceptical because most of the stuff you mentioned is clearly bollocks yet you put all those examples in one big "oh look, all this stuff is so mysterious, there's this and this and this and even THAT all that stuff adds up to it being true" pile to present some kind of "overwhelming evidence! haha!" argument. It's not how it works.

Looking at history is what makes me fairly certain supernatural doesn't exist. If it did, we WOULD have a cohesive understanding of how it works and what it does by this point. Yet throughout thousands of years of human civilization, all the claims that were initially supernatural had a rational explanation. To me it shows that this is just what humans do. We have this innate tendency to jump to conclusions and rely on myths to explain the "weird". Human beings are extremely susceptible to biases.

There have been many cases where supernatural phenomenon was duplicated and people were certain it was real etc. etc.

This whole approach that "this time.. THIS TIME for sure it's real!" just sounds intellectually dishonest. I just take the default stance that it doesn't work.

If I had 2500 dollars and left this 2500 dollars, lets say in my house, with one of my roommates or family members and went to sleep and then woke up and walked to where and who I left the money with and had the person tell me 'they don't know anything about what I'm saying' would be extremely difficult knowing I left it with that person and remember their words, which would make this situation one where I have a fact regarding this personal mystery I found myself in and I intend to use it for the retrieval of my missing 2500 dollars. Same thing with skepticism of the supernatural. Hang on to what you know or strongly believe and don't let morons tell you anything. Rely on facts.

originally posted by: Jimmy11118
If I had 2500 dollars and left this 2500 dollars, lets say in my house, with one of my roommates or family members and went to sleep and then woke up and walked to where and who I left the money with and had the person tell me 'they don't know anything about what I'm saying' would be extremely difficult knowing I left it with that person and remember their words, which would make this situation one where I have a fact regarding this personal mystery I found myself in and I intend to use it for the retrieval of my missing 2500 dollars. Same thing with skepticism of the supernatural. Hang on to what you know or strongly believe and don't let morons tell you anything. Rely on facts.

i promise to follow your advise and not let the morons tell me anything.

originally posted by: Jimmy11118
I really believe what I said was correct and my description of a skeptic is one hundred percent accurate. If you don't then I guess were on two different pages and will most likely never find the middle ground. a reply to: InhaleExhale

so you cant answer any of my questions, why?

Would it be because any answer you provide would contradict what you believe is correct?


Beliefs in descriptions of words is OK, unless that belief is incorrect.

Do you believe I am a unicorn that can speak 23 languages that transformed into a rocket farting goose or are you skeptical of that claim I made?

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Our bodies do not become lighter when we pass. That experiment was shown to be full of inconsistancies and when reproduced it never came up with similar results.

If your "soul" weighed anything, then it could be found and studied.
a reply to: SLAYER69

. . . and yet, there have been billions thrown at thousands of "studies" that focus on metaverses, point particles, antiparticles, 9-26 dimensional super-string "theories" (estimated to be as many as 10 to the 500th power - 10, followed by 500 zeros), and all kinds of cosmological boondoggles that exist solely as the result of inane examples of over-wrought inductivism; all in the name of science. And yet, the question of what inevitably awaits each and every human mind on this planet is a question that is relegated to tent revivals, mysticism and sweeps weeks on the Destination America Channel. Makes no sense to me.

Not one theoretical physicist can provide evidence to support even the tiniest sliver of any of the above mentioned "scientific" claims but no one sees what they do with their math equations, their fully-funded labs, and their university tenures as being hokum. They're regarded as pioneers on the edge of a brave frontier. And yet, whether a one-dimensional vibrating string is actually at the basis of material reality (trust me, it's not, but that's beside the point here) is never going to mean the difference between one thing or the other to anyone other than the physicist who finally proves its existence (or, more likely, proves that the entire string theory phase was a gigantic waste of time and money and careers).

And yet, billions of us are wandering toward that instant within our own lives when the only question that will be worth having an answer to will be "is there life after death or not?". And I honestly don't care who you are or who you think you are, that question will become the primary question at some moment in your life - well, unless you're actually so full of hubris and so lacking in intellectual reflection that the notion of a reality larger than the one you've decided to allow to exist really won't be revisited before a car accident or a heart attack or a bullet (or whatever it is that can erase a life within an instant) takes you before your own mortality ever becomes a contextual qualifier.

If science is actually about serving the needs of the majority of Earth's human race, then it has failed in its primary mission, and has done so while flipping off the whole of humanity. No one gets out of here alive. What should be of primary importance is establishing a scientific means by which this ultimate question CAN be examined without allowing the religionists, the metaphysicists, the spiritualists, and the faithists anywhere near that examination. And we could start by revising what has, for too long, been the Scientific Method. It's useful for low-hanging fruit, but we're well beyond the kinds of research that are amenable to dull empiricism and experimentation/prediction. That's probably why all the "cutting-edge" physics and cosmology is so inherently absurd in its theoretical conclusions. None of these people have the intellectual tools to deal with what their machines are indicating.

originally posted by: rebelv
a reply to: malvy
I never mentioned The Uncertainty Principle, that is an entirely
different phenomenon than The Observer Effect-- Maybe you should
study QP a bit further mate.

A good example of The Observer Effect, is The Schroeder's cat Analogy,
although over simplified, it covers the basic phenomenon to a neophyte.

Not saying you are a neophyte, and not trying to offend here, but really,
I never brought up The Uncertainty Principle which has to do with
scientists apparent inability to know the exact position AND the direction and
velocity of a particle (like an electron) is going, and has further applications
such as one can observe a particle (like an electron) depending on how the
experiment is set up as either a particle or a wave. This has nothing to do
with the Observer Effect however.

Cheers.

Rebel 5

Actually, the Observer Effect and the Uncertainty Principle both have something to do with Quantum Superposition, which is the theory that Erwin Schrodinger was disparaging when he came up with his cat thought experiment in a brief letter to Einstein - on the heels of the Copenhagen Interpretation's widely heralded acceptance (featuring the Uncertainty Principle and how the Observer Effect "collapses the superposition wave" and eliminates the infinite quantity of virtual positions that a particle occupies until that effect has its effect on that wave).

You're both dealing with the same larger theoretical boondoggle, but from different sides of it.

a reply to: NorEaster
What you say is true.

I still stick to my claim that QP or QM certainly has more than enough evidence
that seemingly impossible things happen at the quantum level all the time
such as electrons "magically" appearing on the other side of an impenetrable
barrier after being shot at a electron wall that is impossible for electrons to pass
through.

Have a great day

Rebel 5

originally posted by: Jimmy11118
I believe in facts and I'm not a skeptic or behave the way they do and I understand how skeptics questions and asks for evidence, instead of assuming its real, which is the main reason why I avoid them. Debunker is just another name for a type of skeptic. I appreciatea your comment it was helpful. a reply to: Tangerine

Skepticism is not anything close to debunking. A true skeptic is open to many possibilities and is not in the business of proving people or theories wrong.....debunkers are.

Debunkers are just the opposite of believers. Skeptics are "agnostic" on most things.

a reply to: Meee32

Ok, no big deal, will all come out in the wash, Dude. or Dudet.

The problem being, what you refer to as being natural, is in it self, indeed Super Natural, so all things preceding, the event are there self, super natural.
You need to re-read what was stated if you don't get it
When you start to think you know something, you find you know nothing.

If you travel at the speed of mind for a Billion years, you will still you will still know nothing of The Creator.

originally posted by: dr1234

originally posted by: LoneCloudHopper2
I am wondering how or why skeptics still assert that the belief in the supernatural is delusion in the face of so much evidence. They easily forget that spirituality has been an intrinsic part of the human experience and never has there existed a non-spiritual society. Now with science, technology and gross materialism people are seeing ghosts and demons as 'silly superstitions' which belong to the past. I've noticed two things about such people: A. They are often well-read on current events. B. They are not so well-read on history. I am not a history buff myself, but rarely do I have to do much reading before I get into the spiritual experiences of well-respected historic figures. Every great mind I've met (or read about) was spiritual (and almost all of them non-religious too.)

Skeptics tend to hold to two arguments: "I've never experienced it" or "It's never been proven." The former disproves nothing and as for the latter, prove what to whom? Or should I say, what is proof? If it is scientific proof, who is to verify that? If they mean the majority of scientists, I have questions of my own: How could you know (since many scientists may keep it to themselves (some believe in God and are not Christian scientists, for example?) And what would their belief prove? As Mahatma Gandhi said: "Even in a minority of one, the truth is still the truth."

The evidence is endless, but a few examples: Studies showing that the body loses weight when a person dies, studies showing that the brain reacts when being stared at through a one-way mirror, deep-regression hypnosis revealing past-life memories and pre-life memories of a very similar and non-religious description (see Dr. Michael Newton,) and the scientific fact that physical matter is mostly space made up of particles held together by an invisible magnetic force—resembling a physical form to the human eye and by touch, due to the magnetic force (therefore our perceived reality is itself electrical signals perceived by the brain.)

Since reality is a perception through stimuli, then what makes the waking world more real than the dream world and how then could one (in intellectual honesty) assert that one world cannot interact with the other? They are connected, quite obviously—since we must sleep and 'recharge' ourselves. We awake, 'refreshed' and ready for a new day; we are bringing energy from the dream state into this one, and since we often dream what we experience while awake, vice-versa would also appear to be the case.

But now to common sense points. Everyone has stepped in on a heated debate and felt the tension in the air ("so thick you could cut it like a knife.") What about "women's intuition," the ability of either sex to "pick up" things from people they are closely linked to? Mothers often feel a psychic bond to their children, sensing when they are in danger. "Gut instincts" can aid detectives as well as writers like myself; inspiration striking us and a great idea just "pops into your head." Some people have had shared dreams with someone close, or dreams which came true. Déjà vu is extremely common, sometimes making you feel that every single object, person, word spoken, every single thing in that moment had been somehow witnessed or experienced before; a powerful experience which then fades. Sometimes you just "get a feeling" that something will work out or have a "bad feeling" that it won't. We've always had these experiences, they're nothing new and are absolutely nothing to be so embarrassed about that we all must hide them and pretend they don't happen, when they do (for the majority of us.)

And then there is the one subject that silences most skeptics: Edgar Cayce. If any one person's story every proved the existence of supernatural ability, it was his. Debunking what he proved and to so many would be a futile effort, so skeptics just conveniently overlook it. The few attempts to debunk him that I've read fall pathetically short of debunking the massive amount of real healing he accomplished on multiple people (and while monitored by credible witnesses.)

Countless books, immense public fascination, feelings stirring deep inside you that such things have truth, and yet skeptics still say "bah humbug!" If they feel that way, fine, but how they can still assert their view onto others in such a bold way as to make them feel either foolish or insane for disagreeing with their rigid outlook is absurd to me in the face of so much evidence; which includes photographs, audio recordings, physical evidence, countless credible witness accounts. How about the case of Spring-Heeled Jack? Debunk that one! Several credible witnesses all had the same delusion? A man with springs on his boots who ran around with cold, icy hands and who ripped at women's clothes, who startled such prominent people that the law got involved to search for him?

I'm sorry, skeptics, I can appreciate your fear of the unknown, but your assertions speak of, dare I say, self-delusion to me. At this point, the writing is pretty bold on the wall.

Easily, actually. For one, define "supernatural" please. Vague generalazations obfuscate the situation, be specific. People who are skeptical may tell you a certain photo of a blurry ligjtning bug isn't an orb, but you can't assume they don't have room to beleive in anything slightly unconventional. Supernatural phenomenon (I'm being vague because you didn't give me any specifics to go on) is usually misunderstood natural phenomenon, so it's mostly bull honkey. You can beleive what you want, but chances are you believe in something that isn't real. Physics for example, almost all can be easily proven as charlatans or flat out delusional, yet people twist and mold their words to fit what actually ended up happening. This isn't proof, and proof is how intelligent people decide what is most likely real or not.

I believe in having open discussion between the government and society about these reports of aliens and a variety of different paranormal stories to do with spirits, ghosts, unidentified monster looking creatures and reptilian mind-reading lizardmen. These stories are not only terrifying but could be true and that's why the government needs to be more open and work together with society to help the ones who don't believe or understand what supernatural is.

a reply to: Tangerine

I always loved that one! Intro Philosophy was such a cool course.

Nevertheless, in later years, we learned about the philosophical construct of "utility." Belief in something that has never been conclusively shown to exist, and in fact - by definition - cannot be conclusively shown to exist, is, by its very nature, a low utility belief, akin to wishing.

On the other hand, a belief in the various aspects of so called "supernatural" energies or existences may have high utility, if - for example -- you are the one that wrote the book on Unicorns, or were paid to create the hit feature film....

well there are many different and compelling answers and opinions here. By both sides. And of course many answers are correct and many are wrong. By both sides. So why must there be a side to choose? Why instead of picking a side and with that some framework of belief system, why don't we all just drop it all. Throw it all out! Drop it and let if go - ALL of it. Sceptic or not.

Than when your mind is clear and you are decided you want to know for yourself, than just sit and breath or in another word - meditate. And if your mind is clear and open you will experience something after a while. a while? well It entirely depends on YOU and your mental state. It is that easy. Just throw it all away. Any thought whatsoever. And when you will have an experience, and you probably will, you will wonder what was that? Is it real? You will want to explore this unknown. And from those experiences you will start to build your own universe and your own belief system.

And another food for thought. We have so many different areas of supernatural (or pick any other expression you want). We have UFO, ghost, souls, OBEs,NDEs, religions,.... - it really does not matter which area are you interested. But because of the many different proofs, confessions, witnesses, tests, ect... Many of them are probably fake. But think and wonder, what IF only one of them is correct. Than everything changes. And this applies to all supernatural topics and themes. If only ONE story is true and I honestly believe there is at least one true story in almost any category. Because there are many honest and truthful people we just have to find them by intuition. Then it does not matter what is fake and what is real and everything is different because of just one true story and you suddenly realise you do not know anything. And BAM you will start slowly to wake up and look on world from different prospective.

I'm not sure if anyone has posted a definition of the word
"supernatural" so I got this from The Oxford Online:


supernatural

[ ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl ]


adjective
1.
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature:
"a supernatural being"
synonyms: ghostly · phantom · spectral · otherworldly · unearthly ·

More

noun

manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin, such as ghosts.

Here is the link:

www.bing.com...

Hope that helps. I've followed the thread up until yesterday, haven't read the posts
from last night and today but glancing I see there seems to be some
controversy as to exactly what the word "supernatural" means.

Rebel 5

a reply to: rebelv

Well this surly simplifies things, with your provided definition, but this also proves my point, even this Creation, is indeed Super Natural, by your provided reliable definition

"adjective
1.
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature:
"a supernatural being"
synonyms: ghostly · phantom · spectral · otherworldly · unearthly · "

And my adding Worldly as well, since this to is currently, beyond scientific understanding.

But take something as simple, as that feeling you get when you just know something is going to happen, 6th sense, this has been more than proven.

The fact your mind can alter, a random number machine.

Yea, and the nature part, but then again, all things are of nature, and even natural, as a progression of the perfect plan. So in reality nothing really is Super Natural, it is all normal, a planned event.

Time is the Universe evolving, you as I, have no understanding of what is to transpire, at the Omega Point, or in-between pretty much.
I am aware of one very important fact though, The Truth is prevalent in all these mystery's we have before us falseness in the end only leads you back to the Truth.

It's so sad their are so many none believer's, it must be realized that, with the structures of the design of this universe, there are rules. Some might site the laws of Physic's, the laws of Thermodynamic's, so many more.

It is mot easy to cause a abnormal effect, that would surpass the boundaries of this Reality, the laws are in effect. that does not mean that it is not possible to cause a abnormal or seeming super natural effect to occur in this material plane of existence. This would not really be outlandish, but more outside the realization of a limited mind ( no offence intended ), I am none the differ.

There are many higher planes than this one, there are many, layered one on top of another, so close, but not perceivable. A thought and you are, flowing in the liquid of perceived reality.