Ouija Board Experiences

[JDFP]

Exactly. To believe what religious people do you have to suspend your reasoning power, which more than anything else distinguishes us from the "lower" forms of life on the planet. And if people get offended, so be it. The truth often does that. Fascinating. I feel the same way about Atheists that you do towards we "religious people". Great argument though, the Third Reich and Soviet Russia used the same type of arguments to slaughter millions under the guise of people being less human for believing differently. It's a slippery slope. "Only a fool says there is no God". Yes, the truth often offends. Instead of attacking someone for being religious based on their own perceived subjective notions (and my doing the same towards those who feel opposite because of my perceived subjective notions) perhaps we could attempt to have a more reasonable discussion and get back to what the topic was originally about -- not an attack on people from differing perspectives. Los, we generally have great discussions because you're someone who I can appreciate when it comes to your usually well-reasoned thoughts, but if you think I'm a less intelligent or reasoned person because of my views on faith than I'm sorry to hear that. j.p.

[AcesandEights]

I still maintain that these are all personal truths, and while you can find a personal truth, maybe even share it, you shouldn't press it on others. In the same vein, if people want to hold truths and expound on them, I don't think it's a bad thing for others to question them on it. Though I do feel it's a person's responsibility to question themselves first and foremost.

[Terran]

Great argument though, the Third Reich and Soviet Russia used the same type of arguments to slaughter millions under the guise of people being less human for believing differently. It's a slippery slope. As it relates to the Third Reich/ Nazis that correlation is a bit unfair. Paraphrasing here: While the National Socialist leaders and dogmas were basically antireligious, Nazi Germany usually did not directly attack the Churches, the exceptions being clerics who refused accommodation with the Nazi régime. Hitler extended his rationalizations into a religious doctrine supported by his criticism of traditional Roman Catholicism. In particular, and closely related to Positive Christianity, he objected to Catholicism because it was not the religion of an exclusive race and its culture. Positive Christianity Positive Christianity is a term adopted by Nazi leaders to refer to a model of Christianity consistent with Nazism.Adherents of Positive Christianity argued that traditional Christianity emphasized the passive rather than the active aspects of Christ's life, stressing his sacrifice on the cross and other-worldly redemption. They wanted to replace this with a "positive" emphasis on Christ as an active preacher, organizer and fighter who opposed the institutionalized Judaism of his day. At various points in the Nazi regime, attempts were made to replace conventional Christianity with its "positive" alternative. Theological and doctrinal differences included: * Rejection of Jewish written parts of the Bible (including the entire Old Testament) * Positive Christianity's insistence on Christ's "Aryanhood" and non-Jewishness * Positive Christianity's goal, in furtherance of the political objective of national unity, to overcome confessional differences and to do away with Catholicism and unite Protestantism into a single unitary Christian national socialist church The Soviet Union issue is also more complex than that... Regardless though....let us not turn this into an argument over ideology causing genocides.... All recorded genocides that I am aware of are more complex than being caused by an ideology...more often than not the ideology develops as a rationalization for the actions being taken.

[Wyldwraith]

Thanks Tricky, Taken a long time to set down all that baggage, but all we can do is our best, right? Anyways, I didn't bring up my personal history as some sort of pity-party, but rather as an explanation as to why I possess a certain...."expertise" in distinguishing genuine danger from the perception-tricks our minds are quite capable of playing on us. Additionally, I'm not pushing some sort of opaque mysticism. I believe there ARE rational explanations for every single genuine occurrence of what is termed "supernatural" activity. I simply believe that our current limited understanding of reality's true nature creates blind spots we have yet to develop the capability to pierce. The problem I have with most rationality/logic-based theories and/or suppositions by skeptics is a simple one. Most skeptics, including the ones participating in this thread have so far gravitated towards explanations that all share a common Assumption of Exclusion. In other words, our skeptical friends are saying that nothing beyond an application of misunderstood scientific principles are at work. I find this approach itself to be irrational and unscientific. Not to mention horribly limiting. Example of what I'm talking about: A previous poster described the shattering of two mirrors a significant distance apart, for no READILY apparent reason. Peripheral to the incident(s) was some impromptu manipulation of a "Spirit Board". In response, the possibility of ELF-waves being the culprit was put forward. A reasonable enough premise, but there is an underlying flaw with this and related science-based explanations. What I call a Negative Assumption. A Negative Assumption presumes two things about the alleged incident of supernatural activity its directed towards. One, that the application of the scientific principle alleged to be responsible is in essence a coincidence. In the case of the two broken mirrors, let's assume for a moment that some sort of sonic resonance created by ELF (Extreme Low Frequency) waves broke the two mirrors. That's where the offered explanation ends. It doesn't concern itself with where these sound waves came from, or how they happened to affect these two mirrors specifically. See what I'm saying? For at least a century, skeptics have worked to debunk supposed supernatural occurrences. In many cases they performed the valuable service of unmasking charlatans/frauds, who ceaselessly preyed on vulnerable, often grieving individuals. Particularly during the height of the Spiritualist craze. Harry Houdini is probably the most well-known of these "Debunkers". Unfortunately, it's often only a short slide from skepticism to cynicism. In the rush to prove a supernatural event nothing of the kind, it becomes enough for the skeptic to simply craft an alternate potential theory as to the source of the event. Satisfied they've chased off belief in the supernatural, the skeptic sees no need to establish just why the scientific principle in action affected a particular person or place, or even to confirm that their theory is in fact correct. Look at the vast majority of investigations related to the Amityville Horror AFTER the conclusion of the Warrens' investigation. Nearly all were simply hunting for a *possible* scientific cause of the reported incidents. There's next to no material giving these scientific theories any context. For instance, Mass Hysteria is a stock conclusion for many a skeptic. Using it, they can dismiss anything by blanketing any witness to the goings-on as just one more individual affected by Mass Hysteria. Where are the experts brought in to confirm the possibility of Mass Hysteria? Where is the investigation related as to why this particular household & associates are suffering from this Hysteria, but not their neighbors? It isn't enough to simply fashion a reasonable theory and draw a conclusion on the strength that their theory hasn't been disproved. It doesn't do science justice, and it certainly doesn't do the individuals involved justice. It's just the sketched outlines of my point, but I hope I've made it. Apologies for being so long-winded.

[Terran]

In regards to various genocides after WWII I recommend seeing the documentary The World at War. The World at War is a 26-episode British television documentary series on World War II and the events immediately before and after it

[Mike70]

I still maintain that these are all personal truths, i don't hold with the idea of "personal truth." personal truth is nothing more than an opinion. it need not have any basis in fact or reality. a true statement is one that is valid for everybody, everywhere, all the time. truth does not depend on one's viewpoint nor does truth depend on concepts like "belief" or "faith." 2+2=4 no matter who or what you are.

[AcesandEights]

i don't hold with the idea of "personal truth." personal truth is nothing more than an opinion. it need not have any basis in fact or reality. Mike, not sure I understand how or why the two are mutually exclusive for the purpose of this conversation. If a man wants to believe in a god of some sort I'm fine with it, regardless of how unlikely I think it is. I can't disprove what he believes and i don't know that he's wrong. When that dude starts telling me a god exists then he should be prepared to be questioned. When he tells me I should believe, there's a real problem.

[EvilNed]

i don't hold with the idea of "personal truth." personal truth is nothing more than an opinion. it need not have any basis in fact or reality. a true statement is one that is valid for everybody, everywhere, all the time. truth does not depend on one's viewpoint nor does truth depend on concepts like "belief" or "faith." 2+2=4 no matter who or what you are. I'm with you on this one. I've always found that fascinating when some people bring that up that you can't prove anything. Wrong. I can prove that 1 + 1 = 2. I also don't think the "Personal Truth" really holds water anymore than being used as a synonym for opinion. And opinions are personal. Facts are not. We can prove certain things. This evidence points towards one thing, whereas the lack of any evidence points towards something else. And that is why I don't believe in spirits. If they exist, they've been around for 50,000 years. Plenty of time to leave something behind... Yet nothing? Sorry, not buying it. The one human characteristic I admire the most is that of analyzation. To come to a conclusion through logical means, taking all the information into effect. We don't see alot of that, unfortunately, but I'm with H.G. Wells when I say I'd like to see more of it.

[Tricky]

Anyways, back on track guys, anyone else ever messed about with a Ouiji board? including the sceptics, have you ever done one & absolutely nothing happened? interested in both sides!

[Mike70]

Mike, not sure I understand how or why the two are mutually exclusive for the purpose of this conversation. If a man wants to believe in a god of some sort I'm fine with it, regardless of how unlikely I think it is. I can't disprove what he believes and i don't know that he's wrong. When that dude starts telling me a god exists then he should be prepared to be questioned. When he tells me I should believe, there's a real problem. it is the use of the word "truth" in this context. what someone wants to believe is up to them. to pass that opinion off as some of true statement is the problem. again, a true statement has to be valid for everyone, everywhere, all the time or it simply isn't truth.

[AcesandEights]

Anyways, back on track guys... Damn, just when I was about to argue that 2+2=4 is nothing more than a simian abstraction of a fundamental truth and that nothing can be proven to anyone else.

[Mike70]

Anyways, back on track guys, anyone else ever messed about with a Ouiji board? including the sceptics, have you ever done one & absolutely nothing happened? interested in both sides! no, man i haven't. i think all that stuff is about as silly as putting training wheels on a harley.

[bassman]

I'm still trying to figure out how the fuck "Ouija" is pronounced weejee....

[AcesandEights]

I haven't either. I was given a Ouija board as a Christmas present by a GF about...Christ...16 years ago and it's still in storage somewhere. I find the idea and customs/window dressing and origin of the practice more interesting than the actual practice / use of it.

[Tricky]

no, man i haven't. i think all that stuff is about as silly as putting training wheels on a harley. Chances are your right, but maybe trying it to disprove the whole thing is the only way to be sure!