Ouija Board Experiences

[Kaos]

Is this the sort of subject matter anyone SHOULD feel comfortable or confident in smugly dismissing? I think the gist of my smugness is not that these supernatural explanations are not the reality of whatever phenomena discussed, it is that they are entirely unprovable and therefore entertaining them is a subjective choice as opposed to any sort of connection with objective reality. If science ever demonstrates the nature of these phenomena, I will change my position accordingly. No smugness intended, but entirely dismissive. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[Terran]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Oh man!... I was so tempted to use this statement to make various jokes about various peoples genitals...

[rongravy]

They Might Be Giants kicks ass. Ouija boards are a joke, however. That is all. I don't believe in any of that crap. I would like the zombie apocalypse to hurry the fuck up though...

[EvilNed]

, you cannot make a persuasive statement "that holds water" based on a current lack of evidence one way or another. I couldn't agree more. Which is why science and evidence is so great. Yet, considering there's no evidence one way or another regarding ghosts, but reasonable theories only go one way (infrasound, for instance as Terran explained) I'd say the lack of evidence clearly favours one of the viewpoints. As Kaos said, more or less: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[Yojimbo]

Have little to add except to admit I find the quality of the rhetoric here impressive. It might be lame to say, but this thread really rules!

[LoSTBoY]

I’m liking this thread, reminds me of the old forum. Anyway, to the subject. I am not arrogant enough to say ghosts exist either way, same way I cannot say Gods exist either way. Just being hypothetical here, but those who say the Ouija board is nothing more than a bit of wood with numbers and letters on it are correct, I would assume the real ‘summoning’ would come from the people using the board. Perhaps there are those with a connection to the spiritual who can use the board to pick up spirits easily, perhaps others who are spiritual blanks who are shunned by spirits. Just an assumption, probably been reading too much Warhammer books.

[Terran]

Have little to add except to admit I find the quality of the rhetoric here impressive. Absolutely... The very act of defining has itself been a central part of rhetoric. Hmm. Wait a minute... The very act of defining has itself been a central part of rhetoric? Crap. *Head Explodes*

[mista_mo]

For what it is worth, I am completely dumbfounded that this hasn't exploded into a complete clusterfuck of "NO, YOU ARE WRONG, DAMNIT MAN, JUST ADMIT THAT SHIT STRAIGHT UP!" Seriously, this is a huge change from even a few months ago, when many discussions of a similar nature would become complete battlefields of rival viewpoints meeting in the center of no mans land, gutting each other with bayonets, and screaming praises to their affiliated belief system. My post may not contribute too much to this discussion, but I just thought that I had to say it. Also Aces, I thought of it more like "The person with the incorrect beliefs has to spend all day measuring dicks" Carry on.

[JDFP]

Seriously, this is a huge change from even a few months ago, when many discussions of a similar nature would become complete battlefields of rival viewpoints meeting in the center of no mans land, gutting each other with bayonets, and screaming praises to their affiliated belief system. No, I couldn't resist. j.p.

[Danny]

No, I couldn't resist. j.p. gorram it. now that fucking music is playing in my head as well as everyone elses right now.

[Wyldwraith]

I couldn't agree more. Which is why science and evidence is so great. Yet, considering there's no evidence one way or another regarding ghosts, but reasonable theories only go one way (infrasound, for instance as Terran explained) I'd say the lack of evidence clearly favours one of the viewpoints. You're doing it again Ned, Drawing a conclusion based upon a current lack of definitive evidence one way or another is logically unsound. Implying that the lack of such evidence is indicative of anything is an unsound position. I don't know any clearer way to say it. I'm certainly not saying that I can make a persuasive argument, supported by logic and evidence at this time. Nor can the skeptic offer any tangible support for the argument that the supernatural doesn't exist. Yes, the burden of proof IS on the party who makes a positive assertion. If someone wants to say (for example) that good and evil spirits exist, it's on them to offer something concrete to support their statement. What bothers me is the leap to logical fallacy by some skeptics. Seeing no evidence, they conclude their belief in the non-existence of the supernatural is sound. If however, one were to state a belief in the possibility of any aspect of the supernatural existing, no burden of proof attaches, because it's simply an observation of the possibilities. It is an extraordinary claim in and of itself to state a belief in the non-existence of the supernatural. The much sounder position to take would be an observation of the possibility that there is nothing to the supernatural. Ultimately, skepticism has the potential to limit the pursuit of genuine avenues of inquiry into any facet of the supernatural, and THAT is a shame. No one should take sides when the issue is an unknown. Yet that's what people do. We expend energy trying to convince/woo others to our way of thinking, instead of expending that energy in an attempt to actually find out what the Truth really is. It's a funny thing, the way belief can be so magnetic and divisive simultaneously, while Truth simply is.

[EvilNed]

Wyld, this is usually how it works... As ghosts are not the norm in our daily lives and routines, we can easily call them "lacking" in appearances. Only a few claim to have seen them. Most of those (note: I say most) are obviously either faking it or nuts. That leaves a small number of people who seem sensible (to tell the truth, I've never met anyone). So, we can clearly agree that ghosts are not the norm. Adding to the fact that ghost "sightings" vary a lot and people never really get a good view of them. People also never get any evidence of it, whatsoever. Also, ghost sightings, as with most supernatural things, don't seem to follow any specific rules as everything else does. How, why, where and who vary greatly from case to case (or rather, witness to witness). All this adds up to a rather questionable subject in the first place. Now, you with me so far? You seem to agree that the burden of providing proof (in such a situation) would definetly fall on the person trying to claim there is such a thing. And that's where I agree. But that would also apply to me saying that whenever I take a shit, my ass reads outloud from the script to the Pilot Episode of Dallas, in a voice vaguely resembling Bill Pullmans. Would you believe me if I said that was the case? Would you outright rule it out? I know I would. I'd never in a billion years believe you if you said that. I'd definetly have to back such an outrageous claim up with something or I'd get thrown out of court. Well, the same goes for ghosts. THere is a difference, you see, between impossible and just so damn improbable it might as well be impossible. Ultimately, skepticism has the potential to limit the pursuit of genuine avenues of inquiry into any facet of the supernatural, and THAT is a shame. Actually, quite the opposite. On numerous occasions cash rewards have been offered by skeptics to people who advocate the supernatural if only they can prove it. That way, the scientific people can keep on being all crazy and (god forbid!) "logical", whereas the Supernatural-believers can go about their business - and actually make money from it. So I couldn't disagree more. I hereby state a belief in the non-existence of the supernatural, and I don't find it an extraordinary claim at all. Infact, I find it quite an ordinary claim.

[Terran]

For what it is worth, I am completely dumbfounded that this hasn't exploded into a complete clusterfuck of "NO, YOU ARE WRONG, DAMNIT MAN, JUST ADMIT THAT SHIT STRAIGHT UP!" *Grins* I remember I said this at the start of a response in a thread from the past. As this conversation relates to mista mo I wash my hands. What your saying is so fanatical and narrow of scope that continuing an intelligent conversation with you about the subject would be impossible. Then I continued to address other people.... Ahhh the good ole days.

[Mike70]

Actually, quite the opposite. On numerous occasions cash rewards have been offered by skeptics to people who advocate the supernatural if only they can prove it. That way, the scientific people can keep on being all crazy and (god forbid!) "logical", whereas the Supernatural-believers can go about their business - and actually make money from it. So I couldn't disagree more. I hereby state a belief in the non-existence of the supernatural, and I don't find it an extraordinary claim at all. Infact, I find it quite an ordinary claim. the fact that no one has claimed the $1 million prize that the james randi foundation is offering to anyone who can definitely prove the existence of ANY supernatural phenomena speaks volumes about the nature of the so-called "evidence". all who have tried have failed. in fact, no one has ever made it past the prelims. sooooo, if the believers out there are so convinced that there is "evidence" of the supernatural, then someone should get to proving it in order to claim the prize.

[Wyldwraith]

::shakes head:: You've missed the point completely Ned. Also, regarding your improbability = practical impossibility. Wow, I'm sure glad the guys in the Manhattan Project hadn't taken such a view. Hiroshima would still be standing, and given that every military analyst on Earth worth their salt agrees the land invasion of Japan would've cost 300-500,000 American lives. For that matter, the US gov't invested more money than in literally any other venture to date, pretty much on nothing but the strength of some academic reputations. The only hard data related to the Little Boy A-Bomb they had pre-detonation above Japan was the infamous "Blank shot" which *would not have* resulted in a fission reaction. Of course nowadays everyone accepts nuclear fission as just another facet of known science. Back then? It was scientific heresy to most of the scientific community, and even Quantum Theory couldn't do better than give you the probability that out of X million Uranium atoms, Y single digits worth may fission. See what I'm saying? Do you think the Japanese would have been terribly frightened if we'd called them up and said "Surrender or we will drop our barely-tested new bomb on you, the only data we on said bomb saying it will NOT explode". Yet BOOM, BOOM, Japan surrenders. Improbabilities are important.