|
Any Scary Ouija board experiences? (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DigitalMP |
I've never rocked the Ouija board, but I do believe in the power of the supernatural, to an extent unbeknownst to me.
I think some of you are skeptical because you have reason to be, while some are skeptical because you want to be, others are skeptical because you're afraid to believe otherwise, and the rest are skeptical becuase you really have no ing idea what you're talking about.
Those of you that say someone is 'moving the piece', look at the board, and how the symbols are arranged, think of this scenario:
One who is at an end of the board could very well push the piece to a letter on the board, but do they pull it back? Pushing it is undersatndable, pulling it back, that's not like to be accomplished in a stealth manner, unless there is only one person on one of the sides of the board. |
|
|
| Boomer187 |
damn it, I need to think of a paranormal game to sell. I could be a millionaire...
hhmmmmm.... |
|
|
| Prodigy Child |
Good responce Boomer.
I actually do kinda believe in the paranormal, probably since I love like this, but as for the ouija board, I do think its really just a load of bollocks, I've heard mixed things, even tried it myself, nothign happened and I got bored, plus we were drinking, but doing it right, my girlfriend at the time was big into it and knew what to do, she did it loads, but there is one thing that shocked me, I went out one night downtown with buddies drinking, did some...hmm close dancing with a in hot chick, and the next day I get a phone call from her and she bitchs to me about dancing with that chick, I didn't deny it, but was like WTF, how did you know, she said the in ouija board told her.....WTF.... you ouija, spirits got nothing better to do than stalk my ass getting pissed downtown. |
|
|
| astroboy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Boomer187
damn it, I need to think of a paranormal game to sell. I could be a millionaire...
hhmmmmm.... |
Paranormal monopoly?
edit: Or even better Paranormal Jenga |
|
|
| Trancer85 |
| I HAVE AN IDEA!! IF THE OUIJA BOARD KNOWS ALL LET'S ALL ASK IT: WHAT ARE THE LOTTO NUMBERS FOR TOMMOROW HAHA!! |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by astroboy
"Believing in the paranormal" is just as stupid as dismissing "the paranormal" as bull. I know science hasn't explained everything, therefore, everything that science cannot explain can be called para-normal, or beyond what we currently accept as the norm. I allow for the possibility of some phenomena described as paranormal to be true, but I equally allow for the possibility of them being fake. To dogmatically take either viewpoint is equally narrow minded.
As to the Ouija thing, I think the only way it may work is by you unconsciously pushing it. Whether your subconscious has access to certain faculties of your brain which science has yet to discover, is the real question. My life experience leads me to suspect that the brain will one day be found to be capable of a lot more than science currently says it is... But who knows... |
You know everything bad that's happened to you in your lifetime? I did it. I used my mind powers because I really hate you. You can't dismiss my claims as bull simply because science doesn't have the capability to explain it all already because that would be bull too ... right? To put it simply one can quite easily and rationally dismiss some of the ludicrous explanations for the "paranormal" simply because there is no evidence to truly "believe" in that theory. If people can indeed communicate with the spirits than it should be a testable and verifiable ability. Until that happens, one has every reason to logically dismiss such claims. For example, I would dismiss every claim that the Earth is actually flat because all evidence suggests otherwise. Am I being "stupid" for dismissing such claims as bull. No? Well hey, the Earth is flat, science simply can't explain it in the bigger picture so to speak. How is that rationale any different from the rationale that dismissing "paranormal" activity being caused by ghosts is bull?
At any rate, an explanation for ouija with some kind of credibility ...
http://skepdic.com/ouija.html
I'm curious, has anyone actually tried ouija blindfolded to test it out? |
|
|
| astroboy |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
You know everything bad that's happened to you in your lifetime? I did it. I used my mind powers because I really hate you. You can't dismiss my claims as bull simply because science doesn't have the capability to explain it all already because that would be bull too ... right? To put it simply one can quite easily and rationally dismiss some of the ludicrous explanations for the "paranormal" simply because there is no evidence to truly "believe" in that theory. If people can indeed communicate with the spirits than it should be a testable and verifiable ability. Until that happens, one has every reason to logically dismiss such claims. For example, I would dismiss every claim that the Earth is actually flat because all evidence suggests otherwise. Am I being "stupid" for dismissing such claims as bull. No? Well hey, the Earth is flat, science simply can't explain it in the bigger picture so to speak. How is that rationale any different from the rationale that dismissing "paranormal" activity being caused by ghosts is bull?
At any rate, an explanation for ouija with some kind of credibility ...
http://skepdic.com/ouija.html
I'm curious, has anyone actually tried ouija blindfolded to test it out? |
I think certain claims can be rejected, so long as one has a rational basis for it, and not just an impulsive "that's just crap" approach. What bothers me more is not people saying "ouija boards are bull" or "ghosts don't exist", but saying "the paranormal is bull". To me norms are by no means universal and change all the time, so saying anything beyond the currently defined norm is bull is akin to saying that science has reached perfection and anything that can be known about the universe is already known. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by astroboy
I think certain claims can be rejected, so long as one has a rational basis for it, and not just an impulsive "that's just crap" approach.
What bothers me more is not people saying "ouija boards are bull" or "ghosts don't exist", but saying "the paranormal is bull". To me norms are by no means universal and change all the time, so saying anything beyond the currently defined norm is bull is akin to saying that science has reached perfection and anything that can be known about the universe is already known. |
To me, that's the exact opposite of the approach I would utilize. I would state that all claims should be rejected until there is a rational basis to support it. The burden of proof should not be on existing theory or common sense to disprove every irrational theory that opposes it. The burden of proof should reside upon the newly introduced theory since it has been subjected to far less analysis or scrutiny than what was believed before. |
|
|
| astroboy |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
To me, that's the exact opposite of the approach I would utilize. I would state that all claims should be rejected until there is a rational basis to support it. The burden of proof should not be on existing theory or common sense to disprove every irrational theory that opposes it. The burden of proof should reside upon the newly introduced theory since it has been subjected to far less analysis or scrutiny than what was believed before. |
I think thats a rational basis to reject specific hypotheses that contradict certain assertions of modern science, but I still think that the assertion that "the paranormal is bull", both in tone and substance represents a narrowmindedness that is irratonal. It's the equivalent of saying: "all hypotheses are bull and anyone who does anything but immediately reject their validity, or tries to test them out is a moron"... and where would science be without hypothesis? |
|
|
| Trancer85 |
| quote: | Originally posted by astroboy
I think thats a rational basis to reject specific hypotheses that contradict certain assertions of modern science, but I still think that the assertion that "the paranormal is bull", both in tone and substance represents a narrowmindedness that is irratonal. It's the equivalent of saying: "all hypotheses are bull and anyone who does anything but immediately reject their validity, or tries to test them out is a moron"... and where would science be without hypothesis? |
wise words. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by astroboy
I think thats a rational basis to reject specific hypotheses that contradict certain assertions of modern science, but I still think that the assertion that "the paranormal is bull", both in tone and substance represents a narrowmindedness that is irratonal. It's the equivalent of saying: "all hypotheses are bull and anyone who does anything but immediately reject their validity, or tries to test them out is a moron"... and where would science be without hypothesis? |
First let's separate paranormal behaviour with the explanation for that behaviour. Now, do I deny that unusual activity can happen that some consider to be "paranormal"? No. Now do I dismiss conclusions that the that the cause for that paranormal behaviour are ghosts, goblins, or warlocks? Yes. Because it's a classic argument to ignorance. It would be analagous to making the claim that everything we don't know is caused by God for the simple lack of a better explanation. Nothing indicates that the source of the behaviour IS God, we're simply going to claim that it is because we like that explanation. It's an unfounded assertation that cannot be tested (where did I say that anyone who ever tries to test out that theory is a moron by the way?). Therefore similar to aetheistic denounciations of believing in God, I don't necessarily endorse an unsupported belief that it is impossible that ghosts, goblins, and orcs are the cause for the paranormal activity, however I claim that the belief that the cause of paranormal activity are ghosts, spirits, or whatever is bull because it is without valid, testable supporting evidence. Do you see the difference? |
|
|
| MrSquirrel |
AH HA!
I finally figured out which thread it was that had the V-P lurking in the COR for so long.
:crazy:
Go figure, it would be a thread about something to debunk.
:p
MrS
p.s. - I can't seem to find a link to the knife picture anymore :(
p.p.s. - sorry to interrupt your topic, carry on. |
|
|
|
|
