Believe it or not Millions of Americans think UFOs, ESP and ghosts are real -- that's a problem

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/steinberg/623743,CST-NWS-stein28a.article

October 28, 2007
BY NEIL STEINBERG Sun-Times Columnist

Opening shot

So what exactly are we -- the two-thirds of Americans who don't believe in ghosts, who don't believe in flying saucers, the half who don't believe in extrasensory perception -- supposed to think of the sizable chunk of our fellow countrymen who, according to a new Associated Press poll, actually do believe in these will-o'-the-wisps?

Should we be embarrassed? I suppose so. That is, if we can manage to take them seriously enough to be embarrassed on their behalf. Haunted houses and UFOs and bending spoons -- forget about believing in them, it's hard for me to believe anybody believes in them.

But obviously they do. Should we be worried? I suppose so. If our fellow countrymen are that credulous, that gullible, that eager and willing to scrap the known order of the universe based on a glow they think they glimpsed one night, or something a Ouija board told them in the seventh grade, well, then they're primed to believe in just about anything.

Which, now that I think of it, is the exact problem our nation is facing.

[Ian David]

1. Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities- Voltaire

Giving this a big K&R!

[tom_paine]

2. This is not a problem, it is a BENEFIT to Bushies and all totalitarians

The stupider and more superstitious their subjects are, the easier it for them to be ctonrolled and lied to.

The rising mental weakness and moral cowardice of the Imperial Subjects of Amerika has been a great boon to our ruling tyrants, and I daresay the Old American Republic would not have died in 2000 without these sea changes.

[shadowknows69]

7. Forgive me if I don't consider my belief in the paranormal

to be mental weakness or moral cowardice.

[tom_paine]

35. "People who can be made to believe absuirdities can be made to commit atrocities."

I would like to point out that it is not "belief in the supernatural" that is the sign of mental weakness or moral cowardice (moral cowardice has little to do with it, actually, other than weak-minded people make ideal subjects for those trying to make "good people" behave like Bushies or Nazis).

Try not to take my comments personally, for I am not lumping you in with those groups, and it wouldn't matter if you believed that the moon was made of green cheese, forthe purposes of this particular discussion.

I also fell compelled to add that I am not dismissing the idea of ghosts or many "supernatural" ideas. It is clear that there are many more things "in heaven and Earth that are dreamt of in our philosophies", or discovered by our science I would add.

But the blind faith and unquestioning obedience of the religious mind, which lends itself time and again so easily to the whim of evil tyrants (someone once said "to make an evil man do evil requires nothing, but to make a good man do evil requires God" or something close to it), is deeply psychologically related to the unquestioning and reasonless faith of believers of other things unsupported in any way by science.

There is a difference in saying that ghosts or other supernatural events cannot be ruled out because that would be scientific hubris, saying essentially, "that which we have not yet discovered does not exist," and saying "I believe 100% in (insert unproven issue here) in spire of the fact that there is no research ro evidence to back it up."

A BIG difference, and not just semantic.

I am not here to judge. We all have our own beliefs and ways of looking at the world. I am merely pointing out that there is a preponderance of evidence that the mindset of the "faithful" (faith being belief without logic nor reason nor empirical data to support such a belief), no matter what "faith" they unquestioningly and unreasonably believe, is the most fertile ground for the weak-minds and unquestioning follwoers that any tyrant requires to succeed.

I am sorry for the reality of that. I am sorry for 5000 years of human history replete with example after example after example that comes as close to proving the truth of my hyporthesis. (Google "Blood Libel" to get a flavor of how Bushies of the Dark Ages used their weak-minded drones to kill liberals and stifle dangeorus knowledge). I am sorry you chose to take my comments and observations, well bolstered by historical events, personally.

Believe what you wish, but be careful that such unquestioning faith does not lead you to the service of tyrants, for it has been used in this way by murderous tyrants hundreds and hundreds of times before.

[shadowknows69]

106. Rest assured sir

That I don't put unquestioning faith in anything these days.

[scarletwoman]

136. The key word in that phrase is MADE. Being MADE to believe something is a far different matter than

believing something out of personal experience.

Nobody who believes in UFOs does so because someone in authority decreed that UFOs are real -- quite the opposite. It is generally a wholly subjective belief arising out of personal experience.

Beliefs imposed from without are an entirely different matter than beliefs arrived at from within one's own perceptions.

It is the former that is dangerous because it is a surrender of one's psychological autonomy to Authority. The latter is at the very least benign -- and may even be beneficial because it represents a willingness to question conventional wisdom and place one's trust in one's own inner guidance OVER the dictates of Authority.

sw

[Deep13]

316. No, just wishful thinking. n/t

[Junkdrawer]

21. Yep. The "History" Channel plays this crap and "fear Osama" crap...

side-by-side 90% of the time.

Don't miss tonight. They're going to reveal Nostradamus' hidden last books!

[sendero]

3. I'm not near as worried...

.. that folks believe in those sorts of things as I am that they believe the Main Stream Media and the lying politicians.

The former has no practical consequence, for the latter the consequences are disastrous.

[Zodiak]

4. I don't think it is a problem.

I have never seen a believer in ghosts, ESP, or UFOs try to force their beliefs on anyone else nor have I witnessed any direct harm to one's life from such beliefs.

[NNN0LHI]

5. I don't think you understand

If people are open and willing to believe this kind of crap fake WMDs and videos of fat Osamas come easy.

Don

[shadowknows69]

10. I must disagree

I think that belief in fringe things like this actually make some people more attentive to their surroundings. If you operate from the premise that some of these things (UFOs) are associated with government coverups I think that we believers scrutinize things we're told even more thoroughly. To believe in the paranormal does not automatically make a person a gullible idiot. Most beliefs in such things develop from a profound personal experience. Real or not. You'll have a real hard time telling someone who has seen a UFO or a ghost that they haven't.

[NNN0LHI]

13. And still today 30% of Americans will swear we found WMDs in Iraq too

And about the same percentage of knuckleheads will also swear that Saddam and Osama were good friends.

See what I mean?

Don

[LandOLincoln]

192. No, I don't see, and I think your analogy is inapt, to say the least.

I agree with the poster who suggested that those of us who've experienced one or more of these phenomena (and taken the experience seriously) are more likely to be independent thinkers who're willing to buck the conventional wisdom than not.

[trotsky]

224. Clearly that 30% also means 30% of DUers.

Sadly.

[immoderate]

315. Is it possible for people to be fooled?

Do you think that everything you believe is true?

Do you know anyone who firmly believes in something that you know is not true?

There you go. QED.

--IMM

[Zodiak]

11. Oh I do understand

I understand that apples and oranges aren't that comparable. Show me a correlation between the political beliefs of WMDs and these other beliefs, and you have a workable thesis. Otherwise you are conflating these issues (like the author of the article) in the absence of evidence.

Nor do I think that those that believe in these things are adhering to "crap". All three of those subjects are the focus of a small amount of scientific inquiry....peer-reviewed scientific inquiry, so it is not "crap".

The following are the primary peer-reviewed journals in the field of parapsychology:

Australian Journal of Parapsychology
European Journal of Parapsychology
International Journal of Parapsychology
Journal of Near-Death Studies
Journal of Parapsychology
Journal of Scientific Exploration
Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research
Journal of the Society for Psychical Research
Zeitschrift für Parapsychologie und Grenzgebiete der
Psychologie

The following journals have published papers on parapsychological topics, including the psychology of anomalous experience and paranormal belief:

Anthropology of Consciousness
British Journal of Psychology
Consciousness and Cognition
Cortex
Imagination, Cognition and Personality
International Journal of Neuroscience
Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease
Journal for Transpersonal Psychology
Journal of Abnormal Psychology
Journal of Consciousness Studies
Perceptual and Motor Skills
Personality and Individual Differences
Psychological Bulletin
Psychological Reports
Transcultural Psychiatry

[NNN0LHI]

15. Why don't any of those folks collect the million dollars from James Randi then?

Any ideas?

http://www.randi.org/

http://www.randi.org/joom/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=38&Itemid=31

Thursday, 31 May 2007

The Foundation is committed to providing reliable information about paranormal claims. It both supports and conducts original research into such claims.

At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event. The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place. All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant. In most cases, the applicant will be asked to perform a relatively simple preliminary test of the claim, which if successful, will be followed by the formal test. Preliminary tests are usually conducted by associates of the JREF at the site where the applicant lives. Upon success in the preliminary testing process, the "applicant" becomes a "claimant."

To date, no one has passed the preliminary tests.

[shadowknows69]

18. I tried to call Randi

But the phenomenon I've experienced didn't hang around long enough.

[NNN0LHI]

As they say easy come easy go

Throw a net over that rascal next time you see him and collect the dough.

Don

[shadowknows69]

20. I should

I've been saving up for that contraption from "Ghostbusters" but my wife says it will destroy too much furniture. I keep telling her that Randi's reward will cover it but for some reason she has little faith in me.B-)

[alarimer]

58. Because they cannot prove whatever it was

They can't pass the tests because there is no such thing as ghosts or UFOs or whatever. All of those claims have a rational explanation. Sometimes that explanation is that people are delusional or hallucinating and I am afraid they do not want to hear that. But it's by far the more reasonable explanation.

I really admire James Randi for the work he has done in this area. Skepticism is tough to teach when there is so much irrationality in our media and no one teaching critical thinking skills.

[Amonester]

122. Hallucinating? One of the UFOs (UNIDENTIFIED flying objects)...

I saw was hovering in the air in bright daylight.

To make sure I WAS NOT hallucinating, I went to ask a woman (a stranger who was waiting at the bus stop on the corner) if she would accept to look up to where I was pointing to it in the sky, and tell me if she could see it too:

"Am I the only one who can SEE this strange "thing" up there?"

"NO, I CAN SEE IT TOO!" was her answer.

Being "in a hurry" for a rendez-vous at the time, I had to leave the scene, so I don't know what happened next.

I find people who never saw any UFOs smearing others who did were "hallucinating" quite "dishonest" to say the least.

Are they "scared" or something?

[slowry]

206. Must have been a hot date, to walk away from extra-terrestrial life... n/t

[havocmom]

210. Posted reported seeing UNIDENTIFIED flying object, not ET

Assumptions .... UNIDENTIFIED does not mean exter-terrestrial. It means NOT IDENTIFIED.

Snark fails due to unidentified straw, possibly related to false assumption or even knee jerk attack on someone's observation of something which was not identifiable.

[slowry]

248. It was more of an inference than an assumption, given that the "posted" felt the incident was

noteworthy, and some other indicators.

(-1, caps)
(-1, italics)
(-1, lack of hyphenation -- knee-jerk)
(-1, spleling)
(+1, possibly a milf. confirm/deny?)
(+2, exter-terrestrial? you're cute when you try to type :))

Total Score: -1

Verdict: OK in my books.

[havocmom]

255. Still, nada about ET

[slowry]

261. Prove it wasn't about ET.

1) Algebraically.
2) Geometrically.
3) Via Feynman diagrams.
4) Mechanically.
5) By juggling.
6) Through interpretive dance.
7) Imagine a perfect sphere of infinite volume. Wouldn't that be cool? haha spheres.

[immoderate]

318. Did it have eight reindeer?

That would be a clue.

--IMM

[Zodiak]

66. Because Randi is a sensationalist skeptic

who demands "proof". The proof of which is determined only by him...and of course he set the pie as sky-high as possible.

We're still trying to "prove" evolution, you know.

Also, it is a central tenet in science that absence of proof is not proof of absence.

And Randi's challenge is a scam.

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/exam/Sean_Randichallenge.htm

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2006/12/the_challenge.html

Sensationalist skeptics with an agenda are just as dangerous as a crackpot who accepts anything anecdotal as evidence.

I'll stick with the rigors of normal peer-review...science itself doesn't have an agenda other than looking for answers. And please don't try to lecture me on what science is. I am well-versed (I have a Ph.D. in a scientific field and I am a regular publisher and reviwer)

And to the poster below...you are on my ignore list.

[mondo joe]

68. No, the proof is simple standard science.

Randi aside, if you are in possession of this revolutionary secret of science, why not prove it and be hailed as the new Newton? Of course, we know the answer. You can't do it.

[StarryNite]

199. Thanks for posting those links

I wish I would have had them a few months ago when I was in a discussion with somebody who practically had "the Amazing Randi" raised to the level of some kind of saint.

[blueDachi]

235. Nice to see...

someone else who recognizes Randi's alleged "challenge" for what it is. Randi's a great magician. He's even managed to fool many self-identifying skeptics (many who are really more truly labeled as cynics) with his bogus 1 million dollar act. Those are both great sites too for the genuine free thinker.

[melody]

243. Thank you, Zodiak

Truzzi (one of the founders of CSICOP, of course) tried for years to "debunk" Randi's ridiculous
overreach but the press listened to Randi because he was the fundamentalist pastor of skepticism.

[melody]

158. Do you know how many people have tried to collect on that million dollars? They've even sued Randi

He has the perfect pseudoskeptical end-run around it. "It doesn't exist because it can't exist."
James Randi is a bigger fraud than the most fake psychic.

[mondo joe]

201. And they can't collect because THEY CAN'T PROVE their claims.

Science can.

[melody]

234. No, Randi refuses to pony up -- he's a liar and charlatan

Your religious faith in science is sweet and all that, but the scientific method doesn't speak
to global issues such as ESP. It only deals with local phenomena. In fact, dealing with anything
beyond that is called a scientific conceit and is therefore not scientific.

I knew Mark Truzzi. I am an actual critical thinker. Randi is a true disbeliever. He's not a skeptic.

[mondo joe]

236. "globa issues such as ESP"? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

If ESP is real it can be tested and verified.

But it hasn't been.

[melody]

242. Is your ability to debate this limited to making fun of typing errors?

Sorry, I'm a poor science writer. I have sticky laptop keys. That should have read "global issues".

There are all manner of "real" things to individual people that have never been
tested or verified. Science doesn't speak to those issues.

[mondo joe]

244. It wasn't the typing error I was laughing at. I promise.

If ESP exists it ought to be verifiable.

[melody]

245. Mondo, you're a mechanistic true believer

There is as little point in discussing anything with you as there is in talking to
James Dobson.

You are making fun and you're throwing around a lot of demands for verification without seeing
that has nothing to do with something being "real". It also has nothing to do with whether or
not something exists. You're stuck in a Planet of the Nouns and you can't find your way out.

[mondo joe]

246. To the contrary, I am open to any idea or phenomenon.

There is no one who would be MORE delighted than I am for ESP to truly exist.

All I ask is some empirical evidence that it does.

[melody]

247. Why does something need "empirical evidence" to "exist"? What do you mean by "exist"?

There all manner of phenomena with an external reality (not governed by mental ordering) that can't
be proven. They've been charted, graphed, inferred, supposed, but not "proven". Still, most scientists
(simply because these things apparently have nothing to do with an afterlife) won't make a determination
one way or the other because there isn't enough evidence. The evidence isn't complete. Our tools aren't
sensitive enough, etc.

Why is it when these phenomena are somehow related to "spiritual" things, that some scientists automatically
becoming demanding autocrats who require the "papers" of proof at the doorway to reality? lol

I don't believe in God. I don't believe in religion. I think the worship of things unseen is, for me, silly.
However, having a scientific mind, I have humility before the things I don't understand. When we automatically
assume we know everything, we risk being blinded by our own ignorance.

[mondo joe]

250. I'm not prepared to tutor basic scientific principles.

If you don't have the evidence to show that something exists, just say so.

[melody]

256. Clearly, I understand more about the scientific method than do you

I have a masters degree in a scientific field. Do you have any education in science? Do you know
enough to even be able to estimate your own opinion? Clearly not.

You primarily hound women about science on these boards. You never go after any of the male scientists
who've replied to you. I'm not sure why. I've offered you proof and you refuse to look at it. You refuse because you
already have faith in your religion.

[mondo joe]

262. Wow, two fallacies in one post: authority and ad hominem

If you have a masters in a "scientific field" you should have no problem understanding empirical evidence.

As to your bizarre ad hominem, I have no idea what the gender is of anyone on the board.

Lastly, what "proof" have you offered me? Since you claim a background in science, this "proof" must be really very extraordinary. Where is it?

[melody]

265. Ah, yet another tactical evasion! lol

I merely am citing something I've noticed. You attack people on the board who have female board names.
You've gone after me, after catwoman and a few others. You complain about ad hominem attacks when that
is virtually all you do.

I ask again, what is YOUR background? Obviously, it's not in science. You don't even know who Marcello
Truzzi is (of course, now you'll Google the name).

I have offered you proof in a post which you have scrupulously avoided answering (even though you've answered
all the others). Beyond that, I have work to do. Tell you what, why not go explain to Zodiak (he has a doctorate) why he
needs to prove something for it to exist? Remember, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence! LOL

Later, Mondo.

[mondo joe]

267. Funny that you say it can't be proved, but also that you posted proof.

Very odd - try to make up your mind.

(And I've already replied to Zodiak Ironfist several times, but that doesn't fit your slanderous accusation.)

:rofl:

[Mojorabbit]

306. I don't think that is true

in every case. Ten years ago I was walking thru my living room into the kitchen, I stopped in my tracks and told my husband, someone just died and left us money. Thirty seconds later the phone rang and indeed a family member had been killed in a car crash and left us money. How could you prove this to someone else? Can't be done. My hubby was my only witness. I have this type of thing happen frequently, but it doesn't happen under controlled circumstances. It comes when it does. My experience tells me there must be more to a lot of what is called woowoo than has been explored.

[Laurier]

284. None of them have met the challenge, and those who have sued have lost.

1) When woo is introduced to reality and is put to an unbiased, double blind test on agreed upon terms, woo loses and reality wins.

2) When woo-believers bring frivolous lawsuits against James Randi as a result of their failures in number 1 above, they lose their frivolous lawsuits, too.

James Randi isn't a fraud at all. Those who accuse him of same (typically those who have been defrauding others with their particular brands of woo, and those who buy into those particular brands of woo) are, however, frauds.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

52. I have believed in the "paranormal" for most of my life through personal experiences,

and those personal experience made me do extensive research as to these experiences. It made me probe, and Question All. That same thirst for this knowledge of the "unknown" heightened my bullshit meter and I live most of my life questioning everything. Do not take things at face value. Do not believe every word "authority" offers. So when 9/11 happened and everything started to "fall" into place for this sociopath administration, I did not take everything at that face value, delved into the claims for war and came to the conclusion well before Shock and Awe, that the reasons for war were bullshit.

On a personal note, I have had telepathic, clairaudient and precognitive experiences, am a Reiki Master who has had spontaneous healings, feel & use the energy of crystals and OMG seen a UFO (along with 7 of my neighbors). Big deal.

[sendero]

194. I don't think YOU understand..

... I'm the world's biggest skeptic about most things but I have some beliefs that you would no doubt find frivolous.

They are two completely different things.

[havocmom]

211. Perhaps, but DEFINATELY not assured

One does not have to believe in everything to believe in what they may have experienced. Those are MILES apart.

[AZBlue]

271. What an absurd jump to conclusions.

My grandmother's German.
Hitler came to power in Germany.
So my grandmother's a Nazi? Bullshit.

And your line of illogic is even weaker than that.

[LaurenG]

6. People who believe in Ghosts and UFO's are a problem?

I don't see it that way at all.

[Octafish]

45. Perhaps they know something someone else doesn't know?

I don't know very much about anything. I'm always interested in learning, though. I appreciate teachers. I also applaud those willing to state they've witnessed something fantastic or discovered what had once been considered unbelievable, like radio.

[peace frog]

8. Be afraid, be very afraid!!!!

Ghosts and ESP and aliens, OH MY!!!!

[theHandpuppet]

9. People who believe in ghosts, UFOs and ESP....

.... have never burned people at the stake for not believing; they haven't staged little things like the Inquisition or the Holocaust to eradicate the unbelievers; they haven't wished upon the world death and destruction for mere skepticism.

HOWEVER... believing in an all-powerful, all-knowing, imaginary being in the sky whose son rose from the dead (belief in ghosts and an afterlife), who can read your every thought (ESP), and whose followers in olden times were sighted being whisked off in fiery chariots (UFOs) is an entriely different matter. I wonder if Mr. Steinberg would publicly scorn some of those believers and the real dangers they pose to this nation and to the world.

Or perhaps that was his real point... hmmmm?

[MadHound]

12. Believe it or not, hundreds of millions of Americans believe in a magic sky being

Yet we don't think that they're crazy or odd or stupid. No, instead our society welcomes them with open arms, and if *gasp* some person has supposedly received a "message"(that nobody else can hear, conveniently enough) we don't lock the person up, noooo, we listen to them and revere them, and do what they say:eyes:

Look, I would much rather trust somebody who has seen a ghost, UFO or Bigfoot than I would trust somebody who's supposedly in contact with God. At least the people who've seen ghosts, etc. are basing their opinions on something that they've seen. What are those who are believing in God basing their actions on. Oh, yeah, God "told" them:eyes:

[tekisui]

25. I see no difference in believing in UFOs, ghosts, angels, god(s)

demons, jesus or any other being that can't be perceived with your senses.

[mwb970]

27. What about a "force" that can't be perceived with your senses?

Could you allow for the existence of an impersonal, presently unmeasurable force toward order that has driven, for example, the anti-entropic increasing complexity of life forms on Earth?

Gravity cannot be directly perceived with your senses. Do you "believe in it" anyway?

[tekisui]

29. I can't deny this universe or this life.

The fact that I experience life is proof, to me, of some kind of existence. But, I cannot call this a force with any definition. It is a profound mystery that cannot be explained in sensible terms. IMO, it is no more than idle speculation to label or define this force or any other unmeasurable force. Gravity is a constant and can be measured repeatedly without change. The ideas of gods and such are nothing more than ideas. We produce them to explain our mystery, and give us comfort, but that doesn't make them real. All that I know as real is direct experience.

I may be splitting hairs. I accept the "mystery" that is life, but cannot define it. I assume that everyone experiences that mystery. That mystery may be labeled force, god, source, universal consciousness or whatever. It is something beyond our ability to perceive or measure so I leave it at that. Thanks for the question, I enjoy this conversation.:hi:

[mondo joe]

38. If it's an unmeasurable force, how would I know it exists to begin with?

?

[tekisui]

50. Well, that's the point.

If it can't be measured, why call it a force or even proclaim its existence?

on edit: I thought it was a response to my post. Well put.

[mwb970]

76. You would see the results in the world.

For example, love is a force than can move mountains and change destiny. But, you can't measure it.

[mondo joe]

78. Love is a chemical reaction that can be observed.

And love can't move mountains - physical force cam however, and that is easily measured.

[mwb970]

107. Sorry, that's too dumb to respond to. /nt

[mondo joe]

108. That's an easy evasion for you.

Sorry you are mistaking metaphor for reality.

[Exultant Democracy]

196. I challenge you to a duel, you may have the sword I'll be using this bic.

Unless you think I would have too much of an advantage.

[mondo joe]

202. I'll have logic and reason as my tools of choice, thank you.

[datasuspect]

117. i think "love" begins somewhere in the limbic system

the emotions that the word love connotes are the result of higher brain functions.

and yeah, they know the mechanics of dopamine uptake and reuptake.

[SidDithers]

272. "Love can move mountains"...

I can't believe you're hoping a song by Celine Dion will bolster your case of immeasurable forces. :rofl:

Sid

[immoderate]

324. Are you saying that you wouldn't know if you were in freefall?

Ride a roller coaster. Do you feel it? Are those your senses?

Drop a marble. What happens? Are those your senses telling you what happens?

Conservation of entropy only applies to a closed system. The earth is not a closed system.

You know what they say about "a little bit of knowledge..."?

--IMM

[Lorien]

53. I'm guessing that it's at least 75% of the population who believe

in a deity-and most of them don't believe in ghosts, ESP or UFOs because they didn't read about them in the Bible (well, there was Ezekiel and his sky chariots, but all of that is up for interpretation).

[spoony]

54. Why the hell do these threads always become an indictment of theists?

It's absurd that people who believe in anything supernatural should slam each other for those beliefs, when there are people who think the entire bunch of us are a whole laundry list of insults.

[alarimer]

59. Because it is the same thing

An irrational belief with no proof.

[spoony]

61. Not a very good reader I see.

You are the sort of arrogant tof I'm talking about. Those of us who have metaphysical beliefs should not be picking at each other. In particular they should not pick at theists, when it's actually close-minded egotists like yourself who are attacking them.

[Odin2005]

144. You woo woos give metaphysics a bad name.

Metaphysics has nothing to do with crazy shit. It's about the nature of reality and existance. Everyone has metaphysical beliefs. I myself am a Physicalist and a Reductionist, which are metaphysical positions.

[mondo joe]

63. Whether you believe in god(s) / astrology / spooks / fairies - it's all the same to me.

You all might as well battle each other over your equally unverifiable magic-y things.

[MadHound]

67. Well, perhaps it is is because those who believe in ghosts, UFOs, etc.

Don't start wars, direct foreign policy, base their treatment of others upon those beliefs. However those who believe in some sort of God have, and continue to, start wars, direct foreign and domestic policy, base their own treatment and actions toward others upon those religions. In addition, those who belief in ghosts, UFOs and such actually have some physical tangible proof, videos, EM records, pictures, lots of well qualified people who have seen such events, etc. The religious have what, oddly burned pieces of toast and various ancient, poorly translated books:shrug:

[spoony]

70. There should seriously be some kind of

superiority complex support group here on DU. Or a strawmen addiction one. That way you can look down on all the peons who believe in things you find silly, and at the same time you can lie about the reasons why they believe them, all without dragging down the big forums.

[mondo joe]

74. I look down on people who proclaim things exist - like WMDs - for which there is no

empirical evidence.

[spoony]

79. Well, since I didn't, and that's not the subject here

I don't really know what to tell you about that. (Or is the idea that if one believes something you think doesn't exist, then clearly they believe EVERYTHING? That would be perhaps the worst argument you've presented in these threads.)

[mondo joe]

80. But that's the point. People who proclaim things exist for which there is no

empirical evidence call for others to look down on them, whether that thing is a ghost or WMDs in Iraq.

[spoony]

85. I think there's a rather large difference between

believing a person who says they've seen a spirit or a UFO (by their direct participation in an event), knowing they are facing possible scorn (especially around here!) and believing a known corrupt politico who has a heavily vested interest in lying about something that the DIRECT PARTICIPANTS say isn't true.

It's quite tiring facing this attitude that if one thinks there is reason to believe something you (not in particular, but you as in all the skeptics here) don't then clearly they're gullible rubes who at this moment are emailing Nigerians their account numbers for their big payday. We're not fucking idiots.

[mondo joe]

88. If it tires you, take a nap. Or stop doing. Or stop needing others' aproval.

You have every legal right to believe in the magic fairies of your choice. You don't need anyone's approval except to satisfy your ego.

Believe whatever you like - but don't expect others to suspend reason and scrutiny so you can feel better about it.

[spoony]

97. Don't you worry

My posting history should be adequate proof that I do not seek, let alone need, the approval of those who think they hand such things out. I don't care for popularity. But I also don't care for haughty self-proclaimed rationalists who think that logic is a cudgel rather than a discipline. For, once again, scrutiny is not a synonym for out of hand dismissal of other's experiences. What you lot are engaged in is not scrutiny, it is base arrogance. My ego is not the one you should be concerned with.

[mondo joe]

100. Your posting history indicates that you're deeply concerned with others opinions

and, IMO, have some serious boundary issues.

Others' experiences? Like demons talking to them through dogs telling them to kill others? Yeah - who am I to question that?

[spoony]

104. And yet that was his experience

So why would you question it? That's what his experience was. His particular madness manifested that way. It happened.

Now, seen as I wasn't talking about nutter serial killers, are you implying something about your fellow DUers who have seen things? Or are you just grasping at extremes hoping it'll somehow explain away the experiences of everyone?

Oh, and be careful with your pop psychology, it's getting rather close to the realm of attempting to read minds.

[mondo joe]

105. Who are you to say it was madness????

[spoony]

114. Actually, perhaps you're right.

I thought he had admitted it was mental illness. I just looked it up, and he's sticking to his story. To be consistent, I can't say he was not affected by something outside of himself.

[mondo joe]

118. And then there's Bush peering into others' hearts and knowing whether they

are good people or not. Wouldn't want to question that.

[MadHound]

81. I don't find religious belief silly, why should I?

I know and respect many people who are religious, and frankly I'm a bit spiritual myself(though it isn't your traditional belief system). What I have a problem with is twofold. First that these self same people denigrate those who believe in UFOs, etc. and second, these religious people using their religion to dictate their dealings with the rest of the world. Haven't there been enough crusades? Is not religious bigotry a horrible thing?

And if you would care to point out where I lied on this particular topic. . .

[spoony]

91. Certainly

You lied when you implied that religious people use burnt toast as an argument for our beliefs, as if that's some apologetics tool that anyone uses. "Oh well there was this toast..." In doing so you intentionally misrepresented religious people and attempted to impugn their intelligence.

And then you go on to say that "these same people" (who, exactly?) denigrate those who believe in UFOs and ghosts. There are loads of religious people who not only do not denigrate those people, but who ARE those people who believe in supernatural things. To try to sever the two groups and make them mutually exclusive is pure bull.

[MadHound]

99. But religious people do use various apparitions, encounter, and such, including "pictures"

That appear in in burnt toast and other ambiguous settings to direct their actions. You do remember Constantine don't you? He changed history based on what? Some vision he saw in the clouds. That's but one in a long list of such occurences, so tell me where I lied.

And yes, there are religious people who believe in UFOs. But there are also religious people who denigrate those who do believe in UFOs and such. Is that a false statement? You are simply trying to read too much into my posts, but hey, that seems to be your MO. Good luck with that.

[spoony]

111. Cute way to change your syntax, but you've already said enough

You did not originally include all visions or apparitions, you specifically and intentionally pointed out the worst and least viable as your examples and claimed that was what believers "had" to go on. That you are now expanding your list does not mollify your original straw man.

And, again, you are now conceding that some religious people believe in other supernatural things. Originally you said "those people"--absent any qualifiers about particular kinds of religious people, mind you--denigrate those who believe in them. You are once more shifting your terms about. It is like arguing with the wind. You have nothing solid. Good luck indeed.

[spoony]

72. And frankly even a burnt piece of toast

is more reliable than your fairy tales about Yucca Mtn waste getting into Vegas water supplies in a matter of weeks, lol.

[MadHound]

82. Oh, that just burns you, doesn't it.

That information that contradicts your precious nuclear power uber alles is only published in print version, not on the 'net. This means that you actually have to get up from your computer and expend some energy in order to find it. Oh well, it is out there, in a nice EPA report, waiting for your eyes. Like I said before, get up off your ass and do some research, it isn't the responsibility of others to do so for you.

[spoony]

86. Burns me? That you're full of crap?

No, but it is memorable that you exaggerated a number by some 26,000 times even the lowest estimate to advance an agenda, lol. Face it, there is no report, the experiments have already spoken.

[MadHound]

92. LOL, there you go again, refusing to believe anything that's not on the Internets

Tell you what, why don't you simply contact the EPA for the report, read it and then tell me how full of shit I am? Oh, that's right, it takes energy:eyes:

Look go ahead and make your little snarky comeback, I won't respond because I don't believe in hijacking another's thread over a six month old debate. But I must say, it is rather comical how you've hung onto this one, and you're inexplicable inability to use printed sources of information is rather comical. Or perhaps you actually did read the report, didn't like what you read and are simply blowing smoke now:shrug: Either way, I'm done with your silliness.

[spoony]

98. Grand, so go reply

to my more topical post.

[SidDithers]

274. People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at...

shouldn't have such funny beliefs.

Sid

[Wilms]

14. Some people believe Sun-Times Columnist NEIL STEINBERG - - that's a problem. n/t

[NotGivingUp]

43. exactly! n/t

[Lyric]

16. What's the difference between believing in UFOs and ghosts, and

believing that some omnipotent magical Sky Fairy named God is deeply and personally concerned with the details of your sex life, what you choose to eat, and how you choose to dress?

Millions of people believe in some variation of *that*, and our society praises them for it. In fact, it's largely considered unnatural and strange to believe otherwise.

Next to that, believing in aliens, ghosts, and fairies seems downright rational.

[NNN0LHI]

17. And some people handle snakes and drink poison too

They are all nuts. There is no difference.

Don

[shadowknows69]

19. Hey if that's what turns them on

"Whatever gets you through the night"
-J. Lennon, E. John

[Mutley]

22. Does Neil Steinberg believe in God?

:shrug:

How is that any different than believing in UFOs, ESP or ghosts?

[shadowknows69]

23. That's what I was wondering

I'll engage in friendly debate with any scientist that wants to dispute my experiences or even give me sounds reasons for them. Believe me I'd LOVE to have a rational explanation for some of the things I've seen. A christian tries to tell me I'm nut for believing in ghosts and magick I just laugh at them.

[Vinca]

24. Who has proof that God exists? No one. So why aren't all believers

considered crackpots? IMHO, UFOs are much easier to accept as real.

[NNN0LHI]

26. Who is saying they are not crackpots?

Won't get no argument from me on this one.

Don

[defendandprotect]

41. Agree -- believing in a "god" is a national delusion --

and, a patriarchal god at that -- !!!

Who might have set that up--????

[dysfunctional press]

128. all those who believe in a god ARE crackpots.

and it IS the biggest problem we face as a nation.

[shadowknows69]

154. Will you concede that some of us crackpots

I'd hope most who actually practice the faith they profess, are not dangerous to ourselves or anyone else because of our beliefs? I really don't like being lumped in with people who would start crusades or blow up abortion clinics.

[defendandprotect]

291. There's a difference between true spirituality and organized patriarchal religion...

You don't need organized patriarchal religion in order to do good deeds --

As someone once said . . . "Belief is the end, not the beginning, of all wisdom."

Unfortunately, it was "Christians" who ran crusades and who have "blown up" abortion clinics --

and I don't think it should be forgotten.

Not because all religious are to be blamed, but because we need to understand how religion is frequently misused by hierarchy.

These messages do come from religious hierarchy and we do have to recognize that.

[shadowknows69]

305. Thanks for your response

I was directing that comment mostly at Question All though since he was the one who made the blanket statement.

[bullimiami]

28. there is a lot more possible evidence of ufos than there is of god

and that is the exact problem our nation is facing.

[bread_and_roses]

30. Maybe our world is so "demon-haunted"* because our jobs are mostly meaningless,

our cities unlivable, our natural world increasingly poisoned, our family structure isolated, our entertainment canned pablum, etc. Those commercials that try to make heros of business travelers - this is what we are to aspire to? Moving money around as if that were a humanly satisfying way to spend your days?

We have little community, little satisfying work. Humans crave meaning, story, community, connectedness, and creating. When the real world denies them meaning, they'll look for it inside their own minds, creating alien excitment or connectedness with the "beyond."

*thanks to Carl Sagan
edit-typos

[Kazak]

309. ^ This.

:thumbsup:

[spanone]

31. lots of folks believe in a man in the sky with a white beard.......

[berni_mccoy]

32. People who believe in Bush, WMDs and the Iraq-911 connection are a REAL problem.

[Sparkly]

33. I'm sort of agnostic about all those things.

At the risk of sounding batty, to me it seems arrogant to think we are the only life form in the universe OR that our five senses are the only senses possible -- that what we're able to perceive is all there is.

In other words, if you had to describe a sensory experience (sight, smell, whatever) to a being who had no capacity for it at all, it'd be pretty impossible. Similarly, it's possible to me that there are such experiences or dimensions we aren't equipped to know. We just aren't made to know everything.

I don't, however, believe in God, Ouija boards, or WMD in Iraq. It's easier for me to believe in life on other planets (or "UFO's").

[melody]

34. I don't believe in anything ... including that anyone knows everything about anything

I've photographed what people call "ghosts". I don't know what they are, but I have. I've also seen too much that strongly suggests ESP is real. I don't know about UFOs. And yet I have a college education, a good IQ (in the eyes of academia) and
I'm a critical thinker. I never bought WMDs or fat Osama.

Next?

I think anyone with an absolute opinion about anything this generalized is not thinking clearly. Believe it or not, I don't think everyone needs to think just like me ... or you ... to be intelligent. Imagine that. :)

[Gin]

37. I believe in Ghosts, ESP and even though I haven't seen one...UFO's.......

So...what does that make me?

Color me whatever you like.

[melody]

44. Some people need to believe they understand everything and anyone who doesn't agree is dumb

In reality, those who truly are intelligent know how very little any of us knows.

[Lorien]

60. Amen to that. n/t

[mondo joe]

69. To the contrary: we undertand what we understand. Making shit up because it makes

you feel all warm or excited it dumb.

[melody]

153. With this post, you have merely proved my point

I no more "make up" my experiences than you've made up writing your post on DU.
The very idea that you assume as an absolute that people do make them up and that
they are therefore "dumb", proves my point. I know my experiences are real ...
why do you need to believe we made them up? Who is the "believer" now?

[slowry]

174. If you can prove it to yourself, why can't you prove it to anyone else?

I'm willing to believe in anything which there is a shred of evidence for. Prove it, and change the history of humankind.

*starts stopwatch*

[melody]

238. Very simple proof that this is not a mechanical universe

I and my associates have taken hundreds of photos of faces in "mist" -- what can be called
"apparition". To chalk up the best of these to "matrixing" is an act of faith equal to
suggesting that someone's emotional experience doesn't exist because you can't access it
and you've never felt it yourself. I'd be happy to show them to you. Granted, you have
only my word that they're real, but I can tell you I know for a fact they were not tampered
with or changed in any way. The problem is, you'll see the pictures, you'll see the patterns,
but you'll subjectively choose (just as Randi chooses to not see "proof") to believe they aren't
proof. But if those images exist (and they do), we do not exist in the causal, either/or,
mechanical, universe you choose to believe we do. And your emotional need to believe that ghosts
(the afterlife, in other words) and ESP (also essentially acausal) do not exist are just personal
beliefs, just the same as the true believers you deride.

Real scientists are involved in this field. Real science knows that science doesn't even speak
to universals. It deals solely with local effects. It's your scientific conceit ... your true
belief ... that it can answer things it cannot, that renders your view unscientific by its very
nature.

[slowry]

289. It doesn't sound simple. Also doesn't sound like much of a proof, given the incoherence and all n/t

[melody]

295. It's evidence ... whether you choose to accept it as proof is your subjective determination

Is this really the best you guys can do? Sneer at arguments rather than address them?

This evidence kicks in the door of an absolute belief in a mechanical universe. If you want to see it,
PM me. I'll send you the files.

[mondo joe]

312. If you review the thread you'll find Melody projects a lot that isn't there.

She can see anger that isn't there.

She can see people saying they are "against emotion" even when they have never said such a thing.

Tells you a lot about the rigor of her analysis.

[mondo joe]

197. You may not make upyour experience - you may make up what it means.

George Bush has God tell him to go into Iraq. He can read people's hearts and know their character on meeting them.

Some people hear demons talking to them through dogs barking, telling them to kill people.

They believe their experiences are as real as you believe yours are. Do you believe THEIR experiences because they do?

People, feelings and perceptions can all lie or make mistakes. That's the point of scrutiny and empirical data.

[melody]

240. How do you know what I think it means?

I assert simply this -- we live in a universe we really know very little about.
We're only beginning to understand it.

You're asserting you DO know what it means, just as you're suggesting the "true believers" do.
You're as much bound by belief as they are.

[mondo joe]

257. I don't know or care what you think it means.

And I'm not assuming what it means. There's nothing known about it on which to draw a conclusion, so I'm not.

All I know about it is that whatever your experience, your feeling about it is not evidence of anything.

[melody]

263. For someone who reacts very emotionally, I find it odd you're so against emotion

Your anger drips from every post you make.

Everyone reacts emotionally to everything. We need reason to mediate it, but that doesn't dismiss emotion
from the realm of discovery.

I don't know why I'm bothering with you. We've gone round and round about these matters. You need absolute
proof to "permit" someone to infer it might exist. That's antithetical to science.

[mondo joe]

264. But I'm not against emotion. Another error on your part.

I never said or intimated that I was against emotion.

Your assumption that I'm angry, however, is another example of how wrong your perceptions can be. I always enjoy debate, and especially enjoy exposing idiocy. This is a pleasure to me.

But you just keep proving you really don't know what you're talking about.

:-)

[BuddhaGirl]

101. Agreed

it's called "humility." And many humans could really use a good dose of that! :-)

[ileus]

36. Some believe in Chemtrails also...

[defendandprotect]

42. Maybe because the government has legislation on Chemtrails -- ?????

PLEASE . . . understand that the Chemtrails are acknwoledged by government --
there is Senate legislation on it --
it's about Weather Modification -- !!!!

Lack of information still amounts to the same thing --

[quickesst]

39. How pathetic....

is an attempt to demean the intelligence of human beings by lumping all these together. Do I believe in ghosts? No. Do I believe there is intelligent life somewhere in the universe other than what is found on earth? Yes. I am not an elitist member of the narrow-minded, who claim life can only exist on this planet, especially with the very limited knowledge we have of said universe. Like the repugs, if you can somehow link an unlikely, distasteful, or unpopular scenario with one that, though not proven outright, remains a credible option that should be explored further, one is able to frame other's beliefs in the manner they choose. Akin to the truth movement tactics by some who will take any scenario, person, or group, that do not measure up to scrutiny, and define the entire movement based upon that one dubious person/group.
Finally, why do so many people, in contrast to the words written on this sight, come to the conclusion that, in some areas, people who post here are stupid, or ignorant enough to be fooled by these inane attempts to define others, and berate them when their views do not fall in line with the "all knowing" on this site and elsewhere. I am proud to fall into the one-third category who do not define themselves as the purveyors of a truth that has been neither proven, nor disproven. The only people who are living in fantasy are those who come to a conclusion before all the evidence is in. This article uses the old "lump it all together to get the reaction you desire" tactic. I can't believe in one without being embarrassed by being forced to tie the other to it. Transparent? Yes. Decietful? Yes. Honest? An emphatic no. Thanks.
quickesst

[L. Coyote]

40. But, but, all these things are real. The problem is those believing in gods and devils. The ones

who believe in ghosts and UFOs aren't starting wars over it.

While UFO'd might be real given Jupiter's proximity, and extrasensory perception might be real given biological complexity,
gods and ghosts are just plain silly! :rofl:

[defendandprotect]

48. No one has asked for records since Sen. Steven Schiff's death ---

"gods and devils" -- all created by organized patriarchal religions are our problem.

The sham studies of UFO's by US government still left so many questions that nothing was disproven.

Can we believe that there are no records on Roswell?

No one has pushed that investigation since Senator Steven Schiff's death --


Roswell Story
... radio station along with militaries and told Frank Joyce that he saw a weather ... In 1994 at the request of US Senator Steven Schiff the General Audit Office ...aliens.monstrous.com/roswell_story.htm - 48k - Cached

[NotGivingUp]

46. What an ass. No, I'm more concerned with the huge majority of people

that have fallen for the religious propaganda that has been the source of so many problems throughout history.

[Hersheygirl]

47. That's funny

the founder of the magazine 'Skeptic', Dr. Michael Shermer states that for us to believe that among the many universes out there that there is no other universe that has some sort of civilaziton is being narrow minded.

[Bill McBlueState]

71. how many universes are there?

Some scientists have speculated about the existence of other universes, but I haven't heard of any observational evidence for them.

[dmallind]

178. But that is not an either/or alternative

I don;t think I've ever heard a UFO skeptic make the claim that humanity is the only "intelligent" species in the universe as an absolutely unquestionable article of faith.

I think in all probability in all the countless places it's possible that life could have evolved, the number of places where it has most likely exceeds one.

However there is a big difference between accepting that as a probability which is neither established nor falsified, but merely possible, and taking some limited subjective anecdotes as proof that alien races not only exist, but seem driven to pop in and visit isolated farmers in Montana while making sure that they are not detected by the billions of dollars worth of scientific equipment that is looking for them.

If I claim to be a millionaire, it's certainly not impossible, and I can absolutely prove millionaires exist by the thousands. But are you willing to trade $995,000 in cash for my entire net worth right now on only subjective evidence? How much bigger a claim is one of UFOs or ghosts? How should we accept subjective nonreproducible evidence for that and yet I can't find anyone willing to send me $995,000?

[notadmblnd]

49. I don't think they're any harder to believe in than..

God.

[WinkyDink]

51. Apparently, Jimmy Carter and Buzz Aldrin are nutcases, then? LINK:

http://www.ufoevidence.org/Cases/CaseView.asp?section=FamousPeople

[NNN0LHI]

55. I thought Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin was still looking for Noah's Ark ?

He ever find it?

Don

[WinkyDink]

64. Your point is?

[Garbo 2004]

150. James Irwin, not Aldrin, searched for Noah's Ark. Since we're talking about adhering to factual

information, it would be helpful not to try to diminish a person's credibility with misinformation.

Irwin: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE3DD173DF933A2575BC0A967958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

[Lorien]

57. Along with Alexander the Great, Edmund Halley, and

Christopher Columbus.

Everyone in my family has seen at least one UFO, as have most of my friends and acquaintances. Actually, if you bring up the topic casually in any group of people you'll probably find that more than half have seen something beyond just "strange lights" in the sky. There is such a stigma associated with UFO sightings that most people simply aren't willing to open up with their experiences unless they are made to feel at ease about the topic.

[renie408]

56. Honey where I live, most of the people believe that the son of god died for their sins.

Like that is any more plausible than ghosts and UFO's.

WAIT...ghosts and UFO's might be MORE plausible.

[gulfcoastliberal]

62. Yep, I believe the government when they say UFOs do not exist and there are WMDs in Iraq...

Just like a good little mainstream American

[OxQQme]

65. One of my favored topics

A few of my 'Esoteria' bookmarks

http://www.alienshift.com/id3.html

http://www.sacred-texts.com/ufo/index.htm

http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/Articles/Ancient_Civilisations_Six_Great_Enigmas.html

This one really flips out the skeptics: http://www.rael.org/rael_content/rael_summary.php

http://www.halexandria.org/dward371.htm

[defendandprotect]

290. Yep . . . looks like we're hybrids -- a rather disappointing lot overall --

A 350,000 year ago experiment --- !!!

Nasty trick on the universe ---

[Bill McBlueState]

73. UFOs are real

in the sense that people are always seeing things in the sky they can't identify. Venus is a popular UFO, for instance.

But the existence of UFOs doesn't imply that aliens are visiting us.

[JVS]

266. Yes. Until it's identified, it's a UFO

[scarletwoman]

75. The problem lies with those who accept the word of "authority" without question.

Followers of mainstream religion -- the acceptable versions of supernatural belief -- are much more likely to be the "credulous" and the "gullible" who fall for tales of WMD, and whatever else "authority" declares to be true. The authoritarian mindset is the problem, not the belief in the supernatural.

It's very much the opposite case for those who hold supernatural beliefs outside the mainstream. They are the true skeptics, the iconoclasts who do not accept the word of authority. They are the questioners, the explorers pushing beyond the boundaries set by authority.

Scratch a "New Ager" -- a crystal using, meditating, aura-healing, tarot reading believer in spirits and the unseen in general -- and you'll more often than not find an open-minded liberal who has long ago parted ways with authoritarian thinking. These are the people who have set themselves against the grain of conventional wisdom, these are the people who truly question authority.

The author of that article has it exactly backwards.

sw

[mondo joe]

83. I would counter that the problem is people who fall for things for which there is

no empirical evidence, whether those things are WMDs in Iraq or aura healing.

[scarletwoman]

89. You cannot conflate the two. Belief in WMDs in Iraq is an acceptance of the word of authority.

Belief in aura healing is a subjective perception based on personal experience.

There is absolutely no correlation.

sw

[mondo joe]

90. No, both are the result of accepting claims without scrutiny or requirement of

empirical evidence.

[scarletwoman]

130. Your point is still fallacious. It CAN be proved whether or not WMD are present in any particular

place. People who chose to believe that they were in Iraq did so on the basis of being TOLD they were there by AUTHORITY.

A person who believes she has seen a ghost or a UFO is not doing so on the basis of being TOLD these exist by AUTHORITY, their belief is based on their personal experience and perception. No, they cannot "prove" in the material sense that there really was a ghost, any more than I can "prove" in the material sense that I am in love with someone. It is an inner experience of a personal truth.

The problem for society is the willingness to submit to authority, not that someone believes they have seen a ghost.

sw

[mondo joe]

132. But you're applying a standard of proof to one claim and not another.

The problem is a lack of critical thinking --- authority doesn't even play into it because it plays no role in critical thinking.

[scarletwoman]

139. Because they are two completely different things.

Tell me, how would you apply "critical thinking" to the experience of love? Can you prove whether someone is experiencing love or not? Can you apply an empirical measurement to detect whether or not I'm feeling love when I say that I am? It's an inner subjective experience, it's not subject to external "proof".

If I tell you that I have experienced the spirit of my dead grandmother giving me loving guidance, I cannot "prove" it, it is not subject to empirical measurement. It is my own subjective experience -- and you cannot "prove" that I did not have this subjective experience.

sw

[mondo joe]

142. Answers to your question:

"Tell me, how would you apply "critical thinking" to the experience of love? Can you prove whether someone is experiencing love or not? Can you apply an empirical measurement to detect whether or not I'm feeling love when I say that I am? It's an inner subjective experience, it's not subject to external "proof"."

Answer: Love is a subjective experience - it has no bearing on the external world except to the degree that others may make choices based on their belief in what you say you are feeling.

If ghosts exist, they are not subjective - they must exist external to you and be quantifiable.

I also don't really care if you feel love or not.

If you have an experience that you believe is your dead grandmother, your experience is also subjective. But it doesn't mean anything objectively. Maybe you are experiencing a spirit, maybe you are imagining it, maybe you are mistaking it, maybe you are mentally ill, maybe etc.

When you say your feelings reflect something in the world, expect scrutiny.

[scarletwoman]

146. "If ghosts exist, they are not subjective - they must exist external to you and be quantifiable."

Why must ghosts be "quantifiable"? Quantifiable to whom? My own experience is sufficient to myself, I am the only one affected by it. I don't need external verification to know what I experienced and to feel that it was valid. Nor does someone else's disbelief have any bearing on how I perceive my experience.

I don't care one whit whether anyone else believes in spirits, it makes no difference in my life. Conversely, you shouldn't care that I DO believe in spirits, as it makes no difference in YOUR life.

"Scrutinize" your own beliefs, I'll take care of "scrutinizing" mine.

sw

[mondo joe]

193. If things exist objectively they are quantifiable.

If they can be sensed, they must be detectable, and are therefore quantifiable.

Your own experience may be sufficient for you, as *'s feeling that God wants him to invade Iraq is sufficient for him.

Once you publicly make a claim, it's subject to others' opinions, like it or not.

[scarletwoman]

203. Sure, have whatever opinion you want, it makes no difference to me.

I'd just like to know how MY belief in spirits has any impact on you whatsoever. I'm not out to prove anything, or insist that anyone else share my beliefs. I'm certainly not trying to start a war.

If someone believes they've seen a ghost or has experienced what they believe to be ESP, why should they be under any obligation to prove it to anyone else? No one is telling you that YOU have to believe what they believe.

For all either of us knows, the day may come when the measurement of spiritual energies becomes possible. It wasn't THAT long ago that it wasn't possible to measure subatomic particles. Why assume that we have reached the totality of understanding how the universe works?

I can't explain or measure or quantify my spiritual experiences any more than I can explain or measure or quantify why certain pieces of music evoke in me a deep emotional reaction. It's a subjective experience, it's "real" insofar as I experience it as "real". I can't make it "real" to you, nor is there any reason I should or would want to. It's simply MY experience.

[mondo joe]

205. Apparently it does make some difference as you continue to want to discuss it.

No one is under any obligation to prove anything to me. But I reserve the right to think they are nuts or gullible and to say so.

[scarletwoman]

209. Oh well, excuse me. I replied to your post to me because that's generally what I do when someone

directs a post to me.

But I reserve the right to think they are nuts or gullible and to say so.

Which right I have already acknowledged in my previous post. I'll consider our conversation finished, then.

Good evening to you.

[mondo joe]

212. Nighty night. NT

[spoony]

84. You make good points

though I would ask you not to think of all followers of "mainstream religions" as the same. Just because we chose a large religion doesn't mean we didn't look at it and ask ourselves what parts are really spiritual versus what parts were born in authoritarianism.

I think more and more the conventional "wisdom" of our day is taken to be the voice of those who think we're nuts, whether we pursue a large or small or old or new path.

[scarletwoman]

124. Well, of course I was generalizing to make the point that there are "supernatural beliefs" that fall

within the mainstream and are therefore generally considered acceptable. That is not saying that each and every member of a mainstream religion has an authoritarian mindset, but that there is a distinction to be made between "believers" within organized religion and the iconoclastic "believers" of supernatural phenomena that fall outside the accepted conventions.

I do submit, however, that organized religion -- by its very nature -- is an authoritarian institution; in that a very specific set of supernatural beliefs is defined and sanctioned by the organizing authority, i.e. the Bible, the Koran, the pastor, the rabbi, the mullah, etc.

That is a far different paradigm from the sorts of supernatural beliefs held by individuals who feel certain that they've seen an UFO, or who sense the presence of spirits, or who experience ESP.

The distinction actually can occur within a religion itself. Many religious traditions have both exoteric and esoteric layers; such as Judaism and the Qaballah, the Roman Catholic Church and the Mystics such as John of the Cross, Islam and the Sufi tradition.

The esoteric and the mystical occur outside the boundaries of authority, in that they are subjective, experientially based and inward looking.

My whole point is that the "gullibility" decried by the author in the OP is a feature of the authoritarian mindset, not a feature of supernatural belief in itself.

sw

[DemExpat]

119. Well said, scarletwoman, I agree that the article's author has it backwards.

and that questioning all socially accepted authority, "experts", and professionals is at the key to this.

Most "New Agers" I know do not believe in anything per se, they are simply intrigued, open and interested in all manners/methods/experiences of inquiry and open to all possibilities - and base any likeness of belief on personal experience and knowledge.

DemEx

[scarletwoman]

141. Thank you. It frankly stuns me that so few people comprehend the real dichotomy here.

It's not about acceptable or unacceptable beliefs, it's about the willingness to submit to authority versus the willingness to question authority.

sw

[mondo joe]

204. Authority is not relevant. Empirical evidence is.

If you're paying that much attention to authority, you're not paying attention to the data.

[scarletwoman]

207. Why do you care? What skin is it off your nose if someone else believes they've seen ghosts?

There are millions of humans all over the planet who believe in spirits, are you out to demand that they all stop?

The article in the OP made the ridiculous assertion that people having supernatural beliefs is harmful. My argument is that supernatural beliefs are only harmful when they are tied to authoritarianism.

Empiricism is completely appropriate when dealing with the material world. That some people have also personally experienced a sense of a non-material world should be of no concern to anyone but themselves -- UNLESS they are impinging on someone else's life.

You seem to be accusing people who have what they feel to be supernatural experiences -- not measurable by physical instruments -- of some kind of thought crime. Do you really want to go there?

[mondo joe]

208. What do you care if I think it's pathetic and lame?

Really? Why are you so concerned with my approval?

If I was accusing people of thought CRIME I'd think it was illegal and punishable, or should be. But I don't. So I don't consider it a thought crime. Just a thought shame.

Sorry if it bothers you that I'm not delighted at the thought of a return to the Dark Ages.

[scarletwoman]

213. I'm NOT concerned with "your approval". YOU posted a comment to MY post.

I answered back. That's basically how a message board works.

[mondo joe]

214. Why do you care what others think about your claims about spirits?

[scarletwoman]

221. What claims? I've repeatedly said that these are subjective personal experiences.

My objection is to the blanket characterization of people who have had these subjective personal experiences as "gullible" or "dangerous", as was done by the author of the article in the OP. Not because I'm trying to defend some sort of claim to the "reality" of these experiences, but because I think it's a false dichotomy and badly on the wrong track.

I'll reiterate one more time what I have been saying throughout this thread: It is not "supernatural belief" in itself that is dangerous, it is "supernatural belief" tied to authoritarianism.

Is that clear enough for you?

[mondo joe]

225. No, it's really not clear. But I'm not interested enough to push for more.

Nighty night.

[gtar100]

299. That was clear enough for me.

You stated your point clear enough. Apparently, though, not enough for someone with an agenda.

[AgadorSparticus]

292. I'm very surprised too. You made very good points.

:toast:

[slowry]

77. Someone else pointed out this are of DU to me:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=245">Personal Interests (5th from the top). More posts than any other Personal Interests group. Seeing that changed my whole perspective of DU :(. So much weirdness, so much fantasy...

on edit: ok, it's probably not as shocking as it seemed, given the relatively high post count. It seems like a fairly small, but prolific group. Still, that -- coupled with the weird anti-science stuff lately -- is blowing my mind a bit.

[LaurenG]

87. You must know that more people are open minded there than

anywhere close to "anti science". Why would you feel a need to point out what you consider "wierdness" if you are an open minded democrat. Why would you think it's OK to make fun of another part of the "whole" here?

:shrug:

[slowry]

93. Sorry, I just can't take seriously things like "wiping down your aura".

I'm not making fun; it's just something that seemed depressing, and worth sharing.

BTW ever tried a little C-L-R on your aura? Gets out the nastiest stains, I swear. (THAT was making fun... :().

[LaurenG]

109. I should have said calling out. Please don't misunderstand me

you have every right to not agree and think it's a weird place, my problem is that there is no need to try and hurt a group of people who are harming no one and generally stay out if these "wars".

BTW, my father was a master sergeant in the US Army and a radar engineer. (science type) He knew there was something unexplainable that he tracked flying around up there.

[slowry]

112. Yeah well you, OhioBlue, suck!

Kidding. You're right of course.

[LaurenG]

140. ...

:7

[mondo joe]

95. Open minded is half of the ideal - applying scrutiny is the other half.

IMO.

[LaurenG]

103. I have no problem with that. nt

[Beelzebud]

120. Being open minded is great; just don't be so open minded that your brains fall out.

:)

[mondo joe]

121. Like when Bush peers into others' souls - why not be open minded about it?

Or when god tells him to go to war, or when people float the idea that WMDs were moved out of Iraq.

Hey - let's be open minded.

(Or better yet: let's apply scrutiny!)

[Beelzebud]

137. Exactly. Great examples. :)

[Quantess]

302. Oh you mean like when Jerry Falwell,

or the Pope opens his mouth, and half the world's collective brain shuts down.

(spelling)

[Beelzebud]

329. Yeah exactly like that!

:)

[amandabeech]

94. My dad saw some at night around our house.

My dad was a straight forward, blue collar kind of guy who didn't make up stories.

He said that the things were about a yard across and shaped like a puffed disk. They flew at ground level, and seemed almost to be playing tag. He saw them several times.

He went down to the State Police and reported it. The State Police guys knew him and didn't laugh. They said that my Dad wasn't the only known sane person reporting similar objects around the area. We're talking small town Midwest here where everyone pretty much knows everyone else or one of their cousins.

I never saw them, but knowing my Dad, I have to take his statements seriously.

I don't think that he or anyone else who reportedly saw these things ever talked about it to anyone other than their family, maybe a close friend and the police for fear of being labeled weird. I wonder if there are other people out there who have had similar experiences and aren't talking for the same reason.

[NNN0LHI]

102. Why would your dad be able see things that high resolution satellites in space can't see?

Have you considered that?

They are so good they can identify what brand of cigarette someone is smoking but can't see flying saucers?

Something doesn't seem right.

Don

[amandabeech]

123. This would have been around 1970.

Unless my Dad's brain had a weird short in it that did not manifest itself at any other time, I can't explain it.

I have less confidence than you on the ability of the spy satellites and the truthiness of the government in reporting thereon.

Look, I didn't see them myself, and I have no explanations. However, I knew my Dad very well, and absent a physical or mental problem that otherwise was latent, he just wasn't any kind of crazy and didn't believe what he couldn't see. He thought that religion was hogwash because no one could prove that God existed and he couldn't see God manifesting him or herself today, all much to my Mom's distress. He had a hard time reconciling what he saw with what he believed about the physical world.

[NNN0LHI]

131. Our government doesn't own all of the satellites though

Some are privately owned and some are owned by countries who are not friendly with the US. They can't all be in on it.

Don

[amandabeech]

133. Good point.

Why are you so interested in this topic? Just curious.

[Garbo 2004]

157. On the other hand, for purposes of argument, all gov'ts have a vested interest in the status quo

and not disrupting it. I rather doubt gov'ts would rush to announce to their people, whoa we have conclusive proof there's strange spacecraft buzzing around the earth that far exceed the capabilities of anything any terrestrial gov't could possibly have, we don't have a clue what they are, where they're from, their intent or what to do about them. But don't worry, go shopping. ;)

And the privately owned satellites are commercial enterprises that are likely subject to some regulation by their respective governments in regards to national security matters.

Besides, it's well known that alien ships have cloaking devices to elude those pesky satellite cams. They just occasionally decloak in the atmosphere to mess with the natives. ;)

[mondo joe]

227. Of course any technology that could achive intergalactic flight would't need

to rely on our governments, nor is it conceivable that they'd undertake such a mission only to hide from any verifiable sightings.

[Garbo 2004]

229. Don't you remember the Prime Directive? ;) n/t

[mondo joe]

232. Hehehehe

If the aliens people like to believe come to earth have a "prime directive" anything like Star Trek's they're doing a very shabby job of it. :-)

[slowry]

110. Did you guys do any follow-up?

If I saw something completely inexplicable, and seemingly from another world, I would invest in the highest quality digital camera available. I'd buy a long coat, a pipe, a magnifying glass, and a checked hat, to figure the thing out.

Imagine being the first person to have any solid evidence for intelligent life from elsewhere in the cosmos. Book deals, TV movies, re-written history and science books, your own Wikipedia article, merchandise, fame, respect, etc.! Why not pursue this!?

The only reason someone wouldn't go to all that trouble, to investigate the matter, is that deep down they must know it was nothing other-worldly. There's probably a perfectly reasonable explanation.

[amandabeech]

125. This was 1970, and there were no digital cameras.

I think that Dad didn't investigate because he was afraid and just wanted to ignore it. My Dad just wasn't the type to be thinking about fame and fortune and he would have hated the press. You, obviously, are very different from him, as am I. He was very uncomfortable with the whole thing. I wouldn't even be posting this if he were still alive.

What others did, including the State Police, I don't know. Nobody was talking about it because they didn't want people like you to go around and call them crazy.

[slowry]

134. No need to be defensive. I would be thrilled to see someone substantiate any of these claims.

There's no reason to call someone crazy, for seeing something they couldn't explain, and I wouldn't, thank you very much. If they were convinced it was Xultrz'gnaron from the star system pok-pok-nee-hok, based solely on seeing glow-y lights, I might say that...

The fame and fortune thing was just one example I gave, of how such a discovery would forever change humankind's destiny, and it doesn't really say anything about me, as much as you're making about me.

No offense was intended. It's just hard to imagine why nobody would follow up on these things.

[amandabeech]

138. Thanks.

My Dad wasn't very inquisitive as a general rule, and I had more pressing concerns, as did my Mom. He was not someone who wanted to stand out in any way, and going after something controversial would have been very uncomfortable for him. I think that others in that small community would have acted in a similar manner--social pressure to conform can be really intense in small towns. Non-conformists tend to either leave early or keep their non-conforming views and behavior quiet.

What happened with others who saw the same thing at the same time, I just don't know. Like I say, no one was talking.

[Garbo 2004]

195. But as you illustrated upthread, people who see things that others say don't exist,

can't possibly exist, and go public get exposed to ridicule.

And how does an ordinary person without considerable free time and resources effectively "follow up" on a sighting of something (a UFO) that appears distinctly out of the ordinary? Especially decades ago. Report it to the local police? Call the Air Force who probably wouldn't be bothered with it or if they did pay any attention in the Blue Book days, they might send someone out to tell you it was swamp gas? Call the newspapers/TV station? Find a UFO group, which may be comprised of a few people with some scientific interests or those who "channel" aliens and are awaiting the return of Zardoz? To investigate what? Something that you saw & then it left? Not like it left behind a calling card with a return address.

Meanwhile, let's say you have a life with responsibilities and aren't the type to afterwards obsessively shape a mountain out of your mashed potatoes at dinner. Why disrupt your ordinary life to get no definitive answers and be considered a "kook" in your community. It's not at all difficult to imagine why ordinary people, who aren't seeking publicity and are not interested in becoming an UFO afficionado, don't try to "follow up" on such things and don't "buy a long coat, a pipe, a magnifying glass, and a checked hat, to figure the thing out."

And no I haven't seen anything particularly remarkable. I saw something decades ago I figured at the time was space junk. Although years later when I saw pics/video of space junk and meteorites in the atmosphere, I kinda wondered since what I had seen was different, kind of trapezoidal shaped, not a fireball. Not losing any sleep over it.

What I do know I saw was back in the days of the very first satellites and space flights, the news would announce when the satellite or craft would be visible in our area. It was pretty cool in the early days to see this one little light moving seemingly past the stars way up in the sky. :)

[OzarkDem]

96. Even worse, they believe the news media and the Bush administration

Now that's dangerous.

[Beelzebud]

113. I urge everyone to read Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World.

[slowry]

115. Great book; always save room for it on my shelf. n/t

[NNN0LHI]

116. That not one post has been deleted in this thread is the real miracle here

Strong feelings on this subject and everyone stayed civil. That is a good thing.

Don

[Sparkly]

127. So.... You're saying you believe in miracles?

:hi:

[Gregorian]

126. I think the problem is not whether people believe or not.

The problem is thinking that we have a problem. The problem is that one is making a judgment that they do or do not exist, and then applying it to those who believe differently. No?

This thread really bothers me. I think we should let people believe any god damned thing they want. I don't see this kind of behavior much differently than I see things like the drug war, or spying on us. This kind of separation is the problem. Us versus them.

Forget about what I do or do not believe in. We are all part of something. Not separated.

[the other one]

129. Is belief in God a problem?

As long as we are criticizing people for believing in something that they can't see and can't substantiate, and for which they are willing to mold their lives around, we should mention that the US in general is filled with people who have crazy beliefs.

What makes the belief in god different then the belief in UFOs?

[L. Coyote]

145. Simple answer. UFOs are a real possibility. We send vehicles to other planets

so we know the possibility is real enough that life forms will do just that. But, believing in a metaphysical world is just unsupportable and quite irrational.

[Basileus Basileon]

183. We do not, however, send vehicles to other star systems, nor do we plan to.

I still hold hope for the SETI program to find life. When I want to talk to someone in Shanghai, I do not walk. I send an email. If intelligent life exists near us, it will more than likely communicate with us using the electromagnetic spectrum, not by sending a lump of metal over here.

[renie408]

186. Fifty years ago nobody planned to be talking on message boards. But here we are. n/t

[Basileus Basileon]

187. Sending messages at the speed of light,

and not walking to each others' houses.

[L. Coyote]

190. You've heard of Jupiter and Saturn, I assume.

If we are visited from extra-terrestrial life, it will likeliest be from nearby.

[mondo joe]

217. Are you suggesting there is life on Jupiter or Saturn that is sophisticated enough

to initiate interplanetary travel, but they have not heretofore done anything that would get our notice in any other way?

[Garbo 2004]

249. Jupiter and Saturn are gas giants. They're not exactly solid planets or particularly

congenial environments.

[Basileus Basileon]

254. Are you suggesting that Jupiter and Saturn are capable of supporting intelligent life?

That's a knee-slapper.

[Milo_Bloom]

135. I believe the study is very wrong.

And the % of people who believe in these things is MUCH MUCH higher.

There is far more solid evidence of ghosts, esp and UFOs than there is of the god of the bible, but something like 90-95% of the population believe in that.

When asked by a pollster, most people will say "no" to these questions because they don't believe it is socially acceptable to say yes; however, it isn't socially acceptable to say you don't believe in the bible, so, similarly, they say yes that they do to that.

The 2003 Harris poll on this subject is slightly more accurate (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=359) but you will notice that %'s change with social acceptance.

Belief in ghosts doesn't have to come from catching a glimpse in the night, it can actually come from looking at evidence and realizing that there are something for which there is no current scientific explanation.

[gauguin57]

143. Personal experiences give me an open mind to the supernatural and UFOs ... & I don't believe Bush!

Just because I believe there could be ghosts and UFOs (I've seen one of the latter ... which just means I saw weird lights in the sky that couldn't be explained as any aircraft I know of) doesn't believe anyone can convince me of anything.

I don't believe a word that has ever come out of the mouth of anyone in the Bush Administration. In fact, I usually believe very little of what any politician says, especially when they're running for office.

But leave me my ghosts and aliens. Don't you think it's awfully arrogant to think we're alone in the universe? That kind of thinking is for Bushies and Fundies.

[Odin2005]

147. The big ptoblem is that people use personal experience, anecdote, and "common knowledge" to....

...justify their assertions, which is crap because they do not root out "bad data" based on delusion, hallucination, and cognitive bias.

[scarletwoman]

149. The only "assertion" I see being "justified" on this thread is the idiotic assertion made

by the author of the article in the OP that people who believe in ghosts, ESP and UFOs are more susceptible to being mindless authoritarian followers -- which is exactly backwards.

sw

[Basileus Basileon]

164. The exact nonsense you believe

may be correlated with your exact political beliefs (and may not be), but people who are willing to swallow bullshit with a grin are certainly more susceptible to being reflexive political partisans, and that is statistically correlated.

[scarletwoman]

165. Why post a reply to me? Nothing in your post addresses any of my points. (nt)

[Basileus Basileon]

169. It's a direct reply to your post, yes.

Fundamentalist religious nutters and UFO-ESP nutters are the same thing. They might reflexively join different political camps, but they both are supernaturalists who rely on confirmation bias instead of actual thinking, and so both are at best useful tools and and worst in the way.

[scarletwoman]

175. Ah, "nutters" is it? That would apparently apply to all those who have not attained your perfected

state of rationality.

Myself, being of a heretical and anti-authoritarian bent, am wholly disinclined to give any weight to your pronouncements and judgements whatsoever.

Good day to you.

[Basileus Basileon]

176. Well, of course you are.

Confirmation bias works that way, for both you and for the Republican woman rolling on the floor speaking gibberish in church. Which is why you two both believe in nonsense. She's very proud of herself for ignoring the sinners and Satanists and knowing The Truth, and you're very proud of yourself for ignoring the orthodox and authoritarians and opening your mind to The Truth. Stick both of you in an MRI, and your brains will be showing the same damn thing.

[scarletwoman]

189. Show me anywhere in any of my posts on this thread where I have claimed to the know the Truth.

On the contrary, it is YOU who is laying claim to knowing the Truth.

My entire argument on this thread is that there is a difference between holding beliefs based on unquestioning trust in authority, and holding beliefs based on subjective experience.

The first kind of belief is dangerous and undesireable because it involves blind obedience and eschewing critical thinking; the characteristics of an authoritarian follower. The second kind of belief involves no obedience to anything or anyone beyond one's own internal sense of self.

As long as someone's subjective beliefs do not impinge on anyone else's life, liberty or pursuit of happiness, then their beliefs ought be of no concern to you -- anymore than someone's having a different taste in music than you.

[Basileus Basileon]

259. See, the problem with that argument is that there isn't.

If a belief exists without data supporting it, and exists regardless of evidence procured in a scientific manner, it doesn't matter whether it was gleaned from poor induction or from an authority figure. It's the same bad thought processes that lead to the same bad results; it's just that the person holding it justifies it to themselves in slightly different manners. One holds up the holiness of The Book, the other the holiness of Her Experience. And it does matter.

Let's look at two nuts from opposite ends of the political spectrum, as regards combatting AIDS: a religious nut who believes in authority always, and a go-it-aloner who believes in just about any conspiracy theory regarding the government. It matters that the religious nut believes the way she does because she opposes condoms despite their effectiveness in combating AIDS. It matters that the conspiracy theorist believes the way he does because he distrusts government attempts to stop AIDS (since he believes AIDS is a government-sanctioned form of genocide.) Both of these are very real, well-documented phenomena. And regardless of which one of these you look at, if the nuts get their way, people die.

[scarletwoman]

273. People climb into bear cages at the zoo and get killed, too.

Stupid is as stupid does. Having a belief in the supernatural in itself does not predispose one to stupidity, nor does NOT having a belief in the supernatural guarantee rational behavior.

I'd say that people who are motivated by ego, greed and lust for power do ALOT more damage in this world than some little granny down the street consulting her horoscope. The most dangerous belief I see operating in this world is the belief that the U.S. is somehow entitled to impose its will on the rest of the planet. That's what looks like the most irrational and destructive belief to me.

Someone believing that they've seen a ghost? Not so much.

sw

[Basileus Basileon]

277. I'd certainly agree those people are far more destructive and dangerous.

I apologize if in my zeal to defend my belief that all irrational beliefs are similar in cause, I accidentally implied that all irrational beliefs were similar in effect. Some are benign, some are occasionally helpful, and some are downright evil--and we can agree which those are, I'm sure. I'd put ghosts, spirituality/religion, and neoconservativism as an example of each.

[scarletwoman]

279. In that order, I hope.

;)

[piesRsquare]

226. And what data do you have to support such statements?

Please present peer-reviewed, scientific studies that have concluded that religious fundamentalists, UFO "nutters", and ESP "nutters" rely equally on "confirmation bias instead of actual thinking", and are equally vulnerable to manipulation by authority figures.

If you're going to argue that your stance on UFO/ESP/paranormal activity and those who believe in it is true to science, then back up your conclusions and statements with HARD scientific data.

Otherwise, you're just name-calling, and believing what you want to believe.

Edited for spelling error

[scarletwoman]

231. Data? He don't need no steenking data, he just KNOWS. (nt)

[Basileus Basileon]

252. It may be wise to first confirm that I have no data before embarrassing yourself so. nt

[scarletwoman]

258. Oh my gosh! I am SOOOOOO embarrassed that I made a smarky remark!

Like I give a shit.

[Basileus Basileon]

260. Of course not. That wouldn't support your world-view,

and so is rejected, leaving your psyche unmolested.

[scarletwoman]

270. Thank goodness. I just HATE having my psyche molested.

Take the field in triumph sirrah!

[Basileus Basileon]

251. Well, first you have to realize that we're talking sociology,

which isn't really a bloody science if you ask me. Controversies in the social sciences largely focus on interpretations of accepted data. However, if you want information regarding confirmation bias and it's presence in conspiracy theorists, pseudoscientists, and religious fundamentalists, as well as its effects on human cognition, I direct you to:

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-9450.00085
http://144.118.25.24/dspace/handle/1860/1164
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ471946&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=eric_accno&accno=EJ471946
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0162-895X(199412)15%3A4%3C731%3ABICT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-H
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a779098975~db=all
http://jetpress.org/volume14/latorra.html
Boyer, Pascal. (2001). The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0031-8248(199612)63%3A4%3C538%3ATSAA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/pop/2001/00000035/00000004/art00005

I can give you many more if you want them.

[SidDithers]

282. Oh, snap...

good post.

Sid

[piesRsquare]

287. I'm not interested in "information regarding confirmation bias

and its presence in conspiracy theorists, pseudoscientists, and religious fundamentalists, as well as its effects on human cognition."

I asked for peer-reviewed, scientific studies concluding that religious fundamentalists, UFO "nutters", and ESP "nutters" rely equally on "confirmation bias instead of actual thinking", and are equally vulnerable to manipulation by authority figures.

You made the following statement: "Fundamentalist religious nutters and UFO-ESP nutters are the same thing. They might reflexively join different political camps, but they both are supernaturalists who rely on confirmation bias instead of actual thinking, and so both are at best useful tools and and worst in the way."

YOU are the one claiming that your view of the world in general (including UFO/ESP/paranormal activity and those who believe in them) is based on science. Therefore, please present the science that clearly supports the above statement that you made earlier in the thread regarding "fundamentalist religious nutters and UFO-ESP nutters" being "the same thing", yadda yadda yadda.

If you are unable to find scientific data to support the veracity of your claims, either retract your statement, or concede that, like those you mock, your own assertions are based on personal belief, opinion, and experience, and not on "science".

[Basileus Basileon]

293. I...don't think you quite understood.

I had a tripartite statement:
1. Religious fundamentalists and conspiracy/pseudoscience theorists both rely on the same confirmation bias, and to similar extents.
2. Confirmation bias precludes actual thinking.
3. People who do not engage in rational thought are in politics "at best useful tools and at worst in the way."

The first one is clearly proven in the linked data. The second is as well. The third is entirely interpretation of the previous two statements, which is in the realm of political science, not the hard sciences. If you do not believe that the linked studies do not support my statements, you did not read them. If you do not believe that these three statements are equivalent to the one you italicized, you misunderstand one or the other. If you want one study showing what you ask for, you fundamentally misunderstand the breadth and scope of most scientific work. If you assume that a scientific worldview means one cannot comment on political science, well, you assume incorrectly.

Look, you tried to catch me in what you thought was sheer conjecture and opinion. You were a bit mistaken. It happens.

[fujiyama]

148. This is also a nation

where a huge percentage want crap like creationism and intelligent design being taught in classes, believe the earth is some 6,000 years old...and of all supposed industrialized nations, the most religious (we rank up there with Islamic states in religiosity).

This should come as no surprise.

[scarletwoman]

152. The creationism and intelligent design cohort are the authoritarian followers.

They base their beliefs on the AUTHORITY of the Bible, and the AUTHORITY of their leaders' interpretations of the Bible.

AUTHORITARIANISM is the problem, not supernatural beliefs. Someone who believes he's seen a UFO is not holding that belief because he was told to do so by AUTHORITY, he holds that belief because of personal experience.

There is a vast difference.

The reason that religion has such a hold on this country is due to the deep strain of AUTHORITARIANISM that runs through this country. Our entire education system is modelled on authoritarianism: sit still, shut up, obey, and don't question what you are told. Is it any wonder that critical thinking is in such short supply? Critical thinking is a danger to the State, it has made sure to discourage it at every turn.

There's a good reason that throughout history, authoritarian states have aligned with religion to keep the populace in line. The religiosity of the United States is prima facie evidence of the authoritarian nature of our society.

The believers in ghosts and ESP and UFOs, etc. are the heretics, the ANTI-authoritarians, the questioners, the iconoclasts; they are the ones who dare to deviate from the Orthodoxy and trust their own experiences and perceptions over the top-down impositions of authority. They are the true skeptics who dare to think that maybe, just maybe, there's more going on in the world than what conventional wisdom allows for.

sw

[NotGivingUp]

307. Great post! Nicely stated. I never heard it expressed so clearly and succinctly.

It's so very, very, true.

Thanks! It's a keeper!

[MrSlayer]

151. It's insane to think there is no other intelligent life in an infinite universe,

I've never seen a UFO or a ghost but it is far easier to accept the idea of aliens because it makes sense logically. The whole ghost thing does not.

[piesRsquare]

155. Snob.

(the author of the article, that is)

[Akoto]

156. I pity those who've decided what we know is all there can be.

Our universe is likely vast beyond our comprehension. We can't begin to imagine what's still out there. It must be a very dull existence to believe there can be nothing more than what we're aware of here on planet Earth.

As has been mentioned above, the possibility of intelligent life being out there somewhere is very real. That they might be capable of interstellar travel is also there. We've sent manned craft to the moon, and unmanned craft throughout our solar system and beyond. If we've done it, that means it's obviously possible for somebody else. The technology to do this was developed in the blink of an eye compared to the age of the overall galaxy. What if there were another intelligent species out there, either of higher understanding or simply having evolved first? What's to say they don't have awareness of things we don't or opportunities to experiment and learn that we have not? It might even be a simple time advantage; they might have evolved way before we did, in which case they could have been uncovering these things when we were first walking upright.

When mankind was still young, we didn't know much. We had no scientific concept of things like chemistry, physics, the way space works. We thought the Earth was flat, dragons roamed the oceans and the universe orbited us. In time, individuals who were inspired to understand the truth learned it was not so. I don't know why more and more people are deciding there's nothing more to be found, but I certainly can't live that way.

[Basileus Basileon]

171. Nobody is deciding there's nothing more to be found.

They're deciding that the way to find it isn't to start believing in dragons again.

[MLFerrell]

159. Well Mr. Steinberg, save me the Carl Sagan shtick...

And realize that there likely is something behind these oddly persistent beliefs.

After all, in the 18th century the scientific consensus held that peasants who reported seeing rocks fall from the sky were crazy or liars, because as everyone knew, there were no rocks in the sky.

Oh, and UFOs aside, the fact that there is almost certainly intelligent life in the universe is hard to deny when one considers the vast scale and associated numbers of stars, and by extension planets exist.

[slowry]

161. Schtick? Schmuck. n/t

[Basileus Basileon]

167. I hate when people simply make up histories of science.

Meteorites have been well-known for millennia. There was a mild scientific controversy in the late 18th century regarding the extraterrestrial nature of them, but as with all scientific controversies, it was quickly settled through analysis. Nobody doubted they existed. Even the ancient Greeks knew of them.

Belief in UFOs dates back about 60 years. Apparently once we developed the jet engine, aliens started hanging out around airports and Air Force bases. Coincidence? I'm sure.

Belief in ghosts and other such things has existed forever. People don't want to believe that death is final. That still doesn't change the fact that there still exists absolutely no proof for them.

Finally, there's an incredibly wide gap between "intelligent life exists somewhere" and "intelligent life is hanging around freaking out rednecks."

[Odin2005]

173. Sure there are other sapeint beings in the universe, but...

Anyone with a respectable knowledge of evolutionary biology will understand that they won't look like the gray humanoids of popular imagination, too much convergent evolution to be plausible, all it shows how people's anthropocentrism mixes with their delusions and hallucinations. The "alien abduction" BS is nothing more then the modern, secularized version of people back in the middle ages saying they saw demons.

[Californian Dreamer]

160. It's not so much a matter of UFOs, ESP and Ghosts..

It's a matter of science vs pseudoscience, the ability to reason vs ideological beliefs. What you see with those who are the most... enthusiastic about these subjects is they don't really know much about the scientific method, or what the current understanding of science can tell us. Part of this is because those who want to believe in these things don't understand science, but the scientific community also tends to dismiss these subjects out of hand, replacing full scientific scrutiny with their own biases.

Personally, I give all of these things some benefit of the doubt. UFOs may by 90% provable hoaxes or mistakes, supposed crashes such as Roswell may be nothing but strictly earthly events, and the theories about who the are and what they do are
As ESP and ghosts, I'm a bit less open about, but this is mostly a matter of the rationale behind them. Spirituals planes and whatnot really irks me, it's just a logical cop-out. Now, what might be possible is some manner of mechanism between humans, where information is transfered in an extremely subtle fashion. Or heck, maybe even those how bring up 'quantum mechanics' might actually have something there, maybe the particle/wave thing matters with human beings and thoughts. Quantum mechanics is weird enough as it is, so why not?

But what might be and what can't be disproven doesn't matter. If you don't come to the result by means of science, and if you have no empirical data, than it's nothing more than science fiction. What we need is EDUCATION. Real education, not this intelligent design crap (ID isn't a so much subject that can be treated scientifically or not, it's a flawed methodology that runs counter to the scientific method). We need to bring science and reason to the masses, before the lot of us goes mad.

[arrested_president]

163. UFO's Are Real - Simple As That

where do they come from? i don't pretend to know:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpCGemQ4ck0

Germany made few models

Phoenix watched one float for 3 days. it was over a mile wide:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6Y5RjhOThM


the millitary attacked one in front an entire city:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQmbGMWlL7w

[Californian Dreamer]

191. OK

Honestly, I'm pretty much convinced of it. But my point wasn't about that, it was about those who buy into every single story and conspiracy that fits what they want to believe, rather than being critical and objective about it. People such as those drown out the clearer, more compelling evidence like yours with noise that others rightly try to ignore.

[arrested_president]

219. Thanks

really.

[Basileus Basileon]

162. "Atheists" who believe in ghosts, alien abductions, magic, ESP, or conspiracy theories are amusing.

Either you're a woo-woo supernaturalist willing to discard logic, reason, and the scientific method in favor of unproven undisprovabilities, or you're not.

[renie408]

177. "Patronizing Jerks" who misunderstand the definition of atheism are amusing.

Not really, they are more annoying than anything else.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. Period. You can believe in ghosts and UFO's all day long and still be anatheist. As long as you don't believe the UFO is driven by god.

[Basileus Basileon]

180. What makes you think I misunderstand the definition of atheism?

I don't believe disbelief in one fairy tale and acceptance of another are incompatible at all. However, patting yourself on the back for completely discounting one while opening your arms to another is amusing.

[renie408]

184. Oh. So you are a patronizing jerk who actually understands the meaning of atheism.

I am an atheist who doesn't believe in anything, BTW. Not ghosts, not UFO's...not nothing.

I don't believe because to 'believe', I would need what I consider credible evidence of the whatever. The fact that I, personally, have never had an experience which led me to believe in ghosts, god, UFO's or ESP doesn't give me a free pass to sneer at those who have. At least that is one thing I believe. I find your amusement amusing. It is eternally amusing to me how much people need to stand on someone else's head to raise themselves up.


BTW...I got to thinking about it and it is probably a sign of intellectual snobbery (or maybe intellectual paranoia??) that you were more concerned with the fact that I thought you didn't understand the definition of atheism than that I thought you were a patronizing jerk.

[Basileus Basileon]

188. You laugh at people for their intellectual faults, as do I.

I laugh at classes of people who exhibit entirely illogical thinking while holding themselves up as paragons of reason, and you laugh at individuals who believe flawed pretension is amusing. The difference, I suppose, is I don't scramble for the moral high ground while doing so.

[renie408]

216. No, as long as you can feel like you have the intellectual high ground, I am

sure you are quite satisfied. Whether you do in reality is beside the point.

If someone has a direct experience that they feel supports something paranormal, how can you call their belief in such things as illogical? YOU don't have sufficient proof. YOU don't feel like it is logical. Maybe in another hundred years we will have scientific explanations which will support the existence (or belief in the existence) of both UFO's and ghosts. Hell, why not throw bigfoot in there, too. I tend to think that somewhere along the way, ALL of the things we have to currently take on faith will have a scientific explanation. We just haven't gotten there yet.

[Basileus Basileon]

253. I can call their belief so quite easily,

because there has been much research done on human cognition and perception that easily explains most common "paranormal" experiences. We already have scientific explanations that fully explain the neurological processes behind perceptions of paranormal things, up to and including personal experiences with God.

You can plug your ears and pretend ghosts are real all you like. I'll be reading Nature.

[renie408]

317. Can you cut and paste where I said that ghosts are real? Cause I really don't

remember saying that. What if you read in Nature in another year that scientists have discovered a way to detect the other dimensions that we have only supposed existed up until now? That they have found where particles go when they 'disappear' and 'reappear'? I am not and have never said that ghosts, UFO's or ESP is real. All I am saying is that just because we can't currently prove that they are, doesn't mean that we won't be able to someday. I think it's called an open mind. You can call it whatever makes you feel good about you.

[NNN0LHI]

181. Would that also hold true for The Holy Ghost I used to hear mentioned at Mass all the time?

Thats one ghost that used to confuse me.

Don

[renie408]

185. Yes. You cannot be an atheist and believe the UFO is driven by the Holy Ghost. n/t

[gtar100]

300. LOL - too funny.

:rofl:

[mondo joe]

200. While atheism does technically refer to lack of belief in GODS, I do find it amusing when

atheists make exceptions to general requirements of evidence when it comes to pseudoscience crap.

[axollot]

166. I heard on Discovery or something that -

It is actually a SLEEP DISORDER that makes people feel trapped, unable to move, see the same things etc. It's like any illness - and what they said made sense.
I wish I could link it -
Possible to google - Alien abductions + sleep disorders
cheers
sandy
www.axollotbooks.com

[Basileus Basileon]

168. The same sleep paralysis is also responsible for Medieval belief in succubi and incubi. nt

[axollot]

170. Didn't know that! Makes sense though =) n/t

[Basileus Basileon]

172. It really does. People think,

"Oh, hey, can't move. Weird things happening. (GHOSTS/DEMONS/ALIENS) must be doing something to me!"

[axollot]

179. Bingo! n/t

[axollot]

182. But let me say this......

I can walk into any house and tell you where a person died in it from the first 60 seconds (prolly longer now that I am older) - it's not something I *do* much. It happens when it happens.

So while some things do have a scientific background. Why would my own brain tell me things I would have no knowledge of? We don't know that yet.

There are still many things we do not understand.

Cheers
Sandy
www.axollotsbooks.com
memeber of Current.com
axollotsbooks
shout out for DU when we see other DU'ers there
It's a great site!

[mondo joe]

218. I have a power kind of like that too.

I can hear people make claims and know within 60 seconds if they are full of crap or not. :-)

[gtar100]

301. Your skepticism is proof of nothing

[mondo joe]

308. I'll have to respond later. A demon is communicating with me right now through the barking of the

dog next door, so I'm little busy right now.

[Alexander]

198. UFOs are not even on the same page as ghosts and ESP. This article is crap.

Of course, given that Republicans have been stonewalling Democratic investigations of UFOs for the better part of the past 40 years, it's no wonder there are so many skeptics.

[Hekate]

215. Quarks, Semi-Charmed Quarks--can't "see" those, either. I'm much more worried about the Neo-Cons....

...who believe their universe is ordered on hard sense and ledgers, minus anything as spiritual and unquantifiable as compassion.

There's room in my universe for the occasional shot of ESP (the women of my line tended to have dreams about their grown children that were true), and critters that can't be seen with the naked eye (you know, like the ones that cause flu), and reincarnation and karma, and any number of other qualities and things we can't "prove."

And because I'm a liberal, there's also room in my universe for people who believe things I don't believe or am skeptical of, as long as they leave me alone too.

Hekate

[AnnieBW]

220. I believe in UFOs, fairies, ghosts, compassionate conservatives

and other mythical creatures.

[and-justice-for-all]

222. It is a world populated by delusional masses...

...is terribly sad indeed. No wonder those UFOs never land and greet us face to face or leave any evidence behind, they do not want to associate with such primitive and delusional beings.

Considering that with all Myths and Fairytales, there is no hard evidence to support the hear-say that people claim as fact. UFOs, ESP, BigFoot, Ghost and Gawd are all workings of over active imaginations. Deep down and at the beginging of the story there was some truth, something real and like the 'Chinese Whisperer' during the stories travel from ear to ear, it ended up in the form it is in today.

Obviously, there is a large number of people who are easily swayed and convienced by things without any proof. I have never seen a Ghost, UFO or experienced ESP and I have never was given a worthly explanation to support such claims of the existence of them.

With all these primitive ways of rationalization for the 'unexplained', it is left to ponder the question "how did we even get this far?" This is not just a US problem, but a global problem. There are masses of people who are convinced that the supernatural is real and it directs their lives, even answers prayers. Such thinking is social dead weight, total nonsence and the very thing that will bring society to its knees or perhaps even break it.

Then, at the end of the day, the other reason such nonsence continues to flourish, is because it makes money. It makes money for those that know better, but they know that someone is a sucker for it and will pay someone to support their delusion. It like buying drugs, there are people who will sell you your habit. UFOs, Myths and fairytales are big business, they may appear harmless but they are really doing our society a major disservice.

[arrested_president]

228. what about the links i provided?

???????????

[scarletwoman]

230. Lovely manifesto of Western cultural imperialism.

With all these primitive ways of rationalization for the 'unexplained', it is left to ponder the question "how did we even get this far?" This is not just a US problem, but a global problem. There are masses of people who are convinced that the supernatural is real and it directs their lives, even answers prayers. Such thinking is social dead weight, total nonsence and the very thing that will bring society to its knees or perhaps even break it.

No doubt they live in mud huts and dress in animal skins, too. Of course, the fact that they live in societies and cultures that have managed to persist for thousands of years kind of makes it hard to claim that they have been brought to their knees by believing as they do.

So tell me, in order to save them from their primitive selves, will you be off on a missionary journey to convert them to your superior ways? Of course, I guess you could start closer to home. I have lots of American Indian friends who still hold ceremonies and sweat lodges and offer prayers with their sacred pipes. I'm sure you'll want to stamp out all that nonsense as soon as possible.

sw

[and-justice-for-all]

233. "I'm sure you'll want to stamp out all that nonsense as soon as possible".

The sooner the better.

[scarletwoman]

237. So, you're an advocate of cultural genocide? Nice.

Turn 'em all into facsimilies of white men. Because goodness knows, we've done such a FINE job of running things on this planet -- what with global warming, mass extinctions, oil wars, nuclear waste, sweatshops, depleted aquifers and such.

But at least we're not "primitive". :eyes:

[and-justice-for-all]

276. So, you're an advocate of cultural genocide? Um No.

Not at all. I am an anti-theist who sees religious ideologies and superstitious nonsense as a social antagonist as well as well out of line.

Your accusations are no very becoming; and I suggest that you not put words into ones mouth. I never said anything about genocide or killing anyone. Just destroying Ideologies that act like brinks around Humanities ankles.

[scarletwoman]

278. Cultural genocide = destroying Ideologies.

When you destroy a peoples' culture and traditions, you are destroying their identity, their language, their sense of their place in the world.

You have no right to dictate what other people do or believe. Your sense of self-righteousness is just as heinous and monstrous as that of a witch hunter from the Inquisition.

[Odin2005]

281. Primitive superstitions cause nothing but harm to Mankind.

If cultural relativist idiots want to swear and cuss at me for saying that go right a-fucking-head.

[scarletwoman]

286. No, greed, imperialism and militarism cause nothing but harm to humankind.

My Indian friends in their sweat lodge are doing nothing that harms anybody. But the poster you seem to want to defend thinks that HE should "destroy" their "ideology" -- "the sooner the better" was his statement. Who's being destructive here?

[gtar100]

303. Many Native American tribes lived in relative peace for

several thousand years on this continent. Many had very rich cultures with mythologies, creation stories, rituals and such. They prospered in a long happiness with the condition of the earth as proof of their harmony with nature. Their downfall was not their superstitions but rather a lack of technological progress that included mining for metals and learning to kill other people as efficiently as possible.

I think you're on to something but you haven't quite defined it clearly enough. Have you weeded out all superstitions from your own life?

[Odin2005]

304. Congradulations for falling for the RACIST myth of the "noble savage."

Native American peoples were just as warlike as any other pre-modern people and they often greatly modified nature for their own benefit, the only reason they caused little destruction to the environment was because they lacked the technology and social complexity to do it (though their ancestors did hunt the North American megafauna to extinction).

[LanternWaste]

311. There's quite a bit of written materia...

There's quite a bit of written material that disagrees with your premise that the native American were as warlike as any other of the pre-modern people....


Anderson, Gary Clayton. Kinsmen of Another Kind: Dakota-White Relations in the Upper Missouri Valley, 1450-1862.

Bauerle, Phenocia, The Way of the Warrior: Stories of the Crow People.

Brown, John P. Old Frontiers: The Story of the Cherokee Indians from Earliest Times to the Date of Their Removal to the West, 1838

Jerry Keenan, Encyclopedia Of American Indian Wars 1492to1890 (Paperback)

(I've been reading quite a bit about the metamorphosis of the American Indian cultures recently)

[Odin2005]

336. Sure there is a lot of written material claiming that. but...

...that doesn't really prove anything if the field itself has been biased as a result of the noble savage myth. Sorry if I'm sounding cynical, but my experiences in various social sciences and humanities courses I took for my liberal arts requirements in college tells me that groupthink and ideological biases abound in those fields.

[and-justice-for-all]

298. I have all the right in the World to speak the obvious..

People kill in the name of gawd on a daily bases, advocate murder for Jesus and they even condemn people to die of HIV/AIDS by going to 3rd world countries and tell them NOT TO USE PROPHYLACTICS. Love those Catholics Missionaries!:puke:

I did not say anything about Culture; it is RELIGIOUS IDEOLOGIES AND SUPERSTITIONS..pay fucking attention. Some isolated people who have almost no contact with the modern world are not the issue, it is those 3 world destroyer religions: Xtianity, Islam and Judaism that are out of control.

But you can not have just a little religion, thats obvious. Even moderate religion feeds the fire, consumes everthing and wants everyone to bow to its will. All 3 cause so much damage to everything that anyone with a brain should advocate to have them shut down.

I am an Anti-Theist, I simple will not conceed to this religosity or give it some special treatment when all hell is breaking loose in gawds name. Religion Makes Me Ill!.

[LanternWaste]

313. And all this time I thought it was greed and lust for power...

And all this time I thought it was greed and lust for power using anything and everything to justify aggression and imperialism throughout history...

(This week, I'll tell my fellow parishioners in on the fact that we're trying to destroy the world... who knew?)

[Odin2005]

280. Ranting about "Western cultural imperialism" is typical of relativists lacking...

...a good argument about their Postmodernist notions of primitive superstitions of some tribe in the middle of nowhere being just as valid as scientific theories.

[scarletwoman]

283. Oh bullshit. The post I was replying to was asserting some nonsense about "bringing society to its

knees". I was pointing out that these societies have managed to exist for millenia, and therefore had obviously NOT been brought to their knees.

And taking that particular tack was being charitable on my part, since the notion that the existence of a tribe of animists in the Amazon Rain Forest could bring OUR society to its knees is utterly absurd on its face.

I mean, talk about irrational!

[and-justice-for-all]

297. Oh piss off...

Religion will break the break of society..along with Militarism and greed; all three go hand in hand. In case you have not noticed or you just do not pay attention, All three of the Monotheistic religions are all DOMINIONISTIC.

[arrested_president]

239. "It is a world populated by delusional masses..."

i SO agree with this, in general - just not how you expouse it, in particular


and, i hate living with deslusional people, too

but, why not talk about how fundies can hate everything non-white and christian and still be so delusional to think the are righteous?

THAT'S the delusion that i hate. UFO's are real - even if they originate from earth and we just don't know what it is

but, i'm not going to act like i don't think there's life out there because it would be ignorant not to


you want DELUSIONAL? check out Jefferson signing the declaration of independence then going home to hundreds of slaves that night and thinking he's a good man


THAT'S delusional


OR, Bush taking about values

Or, saying america is the greatest nation


plenty of delusion to go around, why pick on people who have had experiences you can't possibly account for? you weren't there so, you simply don't know


to discount these, you have to be DELUSIONAL enough to think the world fits in your pocket and you have a firm grasp upon it

you DON'T


THAT would be delusional...

[L0oniX]

223. Idiots believe everything on TV is true. "I am the slime from your video" - Frank Zappa

[GoneOffShore]

241. It is indeed a huge problem

We don't teach enough hard science in this country.

And that is why nonsense like "The Secret" is given any shelf room.

I blame Oprah, myself.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

268. Never mind the 33% who believe

in UFOs, ghosties, ghoulies and thingys from another dimension.

The 80% who believe in an invisible critter they've never seen or heard, but who orders their lives, a zombie godling, virgins having babies, prophets flying on horses that have wings, crackers that turn into human flesh and a sun that stands still in the sky scare me a whole lot more. And, over the centuries, their predecessors have done a helluva lot more damage than some woman hooting at a piece of crystal or dancing around a fire.

It's a matter of scope, really, and the scope of organized religion is far more dangerous.

[arrested_president]

269. Believe it or not Millions of Americans think politcian's claim are real -- that's a problem

the biggest problem of all



Opening shot

So what exactly are we -- the two-thirds of Americans who don't think the current candidates are worth voting for -- supposed to think of the sizable chunk of our fellow countrymen who, according to a new Associated Press poll, actually do believe in these career politicians?

Should we be embarrassed? I suppose so. That is, if we can manage to take them seriously enough to be embarrassed on their behalf. They think their elected official gives a damn about them -- forget about believing in them, it's hard for me to believe anybody believes in them.

But obviously they do. Should we be worried? I suppose so. If our fellow countrymen are that credulous, that gullible, that eager and willing to scrap the known order of the universe based on what a politician told them in the seventh grade, well, then they're primed to believe in just about anything.

Which, now that I think of it, is the exact problem our nation is facing.

[arrested_president]

275. UFO Wave Over Belgium 1991

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBVzyaiOrZY


the entire government believes in ufos and you can see them track and chase it on radar

this video was made with the cooperation of the Belgium government AND Air Force

there are more videos from this incident on the same page

[philb]

285. Do you have evidence that UFOs don't exist? Are you suggesting

that there is a logical explanation other than UFOs for the many credible sightings by credible witnesses, including pilots, radar operators, sheriff's, etc. I've seen enough evidence to think its an open question.

I've had a bit of physics and I think you might be surprised by some of the things physicists understand and believe that are inconsistent with what most people "know" Quantum physics for example makes possible some things most don't understand or wouldn't believe, but that have been verified. Some things I've seen demonstated I don't understand, even though I saw it.

But you are right that there have also always been gullible people who follow charatans and witchdoctors, there are as many of these now as ever.

[bridgit]

288. Very well, how is that a problem? And just to play Devil's Advo in that DU thinks America to be...

a bastion of Liberal/Progressive thought & principle as it, DU, sits here as bill after bill after bill is signed into neocon law while tearing it's, yes, "so-called" leaders to shreds.

Where is the greater disconnect? In a person that believes in UFO's, ghosts & fairies? Or in a person that is waiting for already certified organic sunflowers to simply blossom from the midst of weed infested crabgrass to the strains of George Strait's, Heartland http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPWXX3rOesY

[leftofthedial]

294. UFO's are undeniably real

WHAT they are is the issue.

ESP also is undeniably real, assuming "sensory" means taste, touch, smell, hearing and seeing. Many people, including myself, in my experience have perceived things without the five "normal" senses. What that perception is and what it means is the issue.

Ghosts? What is a ghost? I don't even believe in the "soul," but I think I saw a "ghost" once.

[Deep13]

319. I deny that UFOs are real.

Unless by "unidentified" one means failing to recognize a very ordinary thing.

Anecdotes and personal experience are not proof of ESP. The mind is too susceptible to fooling itself.

Ghosts are a funny thing. One should be wary of ascribing extraordinary explanations to ordinary observations. In the case of ghosts, however, it seems to be an extraordinary explanation for nothing. There has never been a reliable observation of anything remotely spectral.

[leftofthedial]

337. you deny that anyone has ever seen a flying object that was unidentified?

you're either not too bright or completely uninformed. There are *thousands* of official reports of flying objects that can't be identified.

[Deep13]

338. Read the whole post.

And don't change the subject. It is easy to call someone ignorant or stupid from behind a computer screen. Even if that is true, and it is not, it does not change the fact that the whole UFO's-are-real point of view is based on a delusion. You're reaction is uninformed as you have no idea what I might know about the subject. There has never been a reliable report of a truly inexplicable flying object. I guess I get a little annoyed having my intelligence questioned by gullible followers of conspiracy "theories" who have no understanding of hoe science works.

[Warren DeMontague]

296. Yet nothing about the large percentage who supposedly believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.

This guy works for the Sun-Times, I'm surprised he didn't feel it worthy to mention the folks who came out to worship a salt stain in an overpass on the Eisenhower Expy. a couple years ago that "looked like the virgin mary" (I thought it looked like something a little more, er, sexual, but that's just how my mind works). Yes, what a surprise.

Not.

I think far more people are willing to scrap the known order of the universe based on what the preacher tells them on Sunday morning, but maybe that's just me.

If people are going to rail against beliefs for which there is no physical evidence, fine- but they need to do it in an even-handed fashion. No, there's no accepted scientific physical evidence proving extraterrestrial visitors.. but there's no accepted scientific physical evidence proving the God of the Bible, either.

And some concepts- "God" "ESP".. well, they're nebulously defined enough so that even if you could prove a negative in most cases, you're certainly not ever going to be able to with them.

"UFO"s? What does UFO stand for? Unidentified Flying Object. Are you telling me that no flying objects have ever been unidentified? That is a staggering assertion.

[Felix Mala]

310. And human beings aren't animals, but were created out of mud and there were

dinosaurs on the ark.

[LanternWaste]

314. However, I imagine more people believe more in...

However, I imagine more people believe more in gaming consoles, I-Pods, and fast food, and all the other trappings of consumerism, which is (I believe) much more damming (and telling) to a culture than mere fancies of the imagination which have no identifiable impact of consequence.

[mondo joe]

320. I definitely believe in iPods. iPhones too. I'm pretty certain they exist.

I'm less certain, but do feel, that a culture that embraces pseudoscience and discourages skepticism is in trouble.

Whether it's aura-healing or converting-gays or 6,000-year-old-earths, it doesn't speak well to our ability to discern.

[LanternWaste]

321. I'm afraid you missed the point I was hoping to make...

I'm afraid you missed the point I was hoping to make...

It's ALL very telling of (collectively) who we are and (collectively) where we may go. Psychic hucksters being one small, almost insignificant part of a greater whole more easily inferred through our consumer habits and priorities.

Whether it's Grand Theft Auto or Judge Judy, it's one less book read. And it doesn't really speak too well of "our ability to discern" as you so aptly put it.

(Yeah-- I'm pretty certain I-Pods exist, too. That was just too clever by half...)

[mondo joe]

323. I think I get your point, but don't wholly agree.

Watching Judge Judy does give you half an hour less to read. But it's also very possible to be quite well read and still catch Judge Judy. There's time for serious study, and time for entertainment a well.

Now it could be argued that psychic hucksters are entertainment as well, and I don't doubt that they entertain. But they don't sell themselves as entertainment. They therefore both rip off people with lies, and contribute to a culture without skepticism. I think that does both short and long term damage, both direct and indirect.

People my rail against consumerism or materialism, but I'd argue when you buy a game console you at least know what you're buying - or have the opportunity to do so. Religious and paranormal hucksters don't provide even that.

[LanternWaste]

332. a Tarot reading is much less indicative of our collective priorities...

"But it's also very possible to be quite well read and still catch Judge Judy."

As it also possible to be well-read and yet still believe that the fortune-teller living on the corner is legitimate.

At the end of the day, I believe that our attendance at a Tarot reading is much less indicative of our collective (or even individual) priorities than the abnormally long lines that appear at the premier of a new console game, or the 321.1 million dollar price tag of an NFL quarterback.

[Evoman]

322. I was abducted by aliens once.

This is a story I once told in R/T

They paralyzed my entire body, and then picked me up with a beam of light into their spaceship. I was quite scared. I lay on this table, unable to move, while they examined me. Finally, I got enough strength to speak and I asked them if they were going to probe my anus, because I was NOT cool with that.

They told me they had no interest in interacting with an orifice that was not overly significant and served only to expel waste. So they taped my mouth shut, and started probing my anus.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

325. The real problem is those whose rigid, unthinking, unimagining dogma

won't allow them to see the possibilities of anything beyond their tiny bubble worlds.

"AN AWFUL WASTE OF SPACE"

[mondo joe]

326. Seeing possibilities isn't the same as making unsupported claims.

I think you may find that most skeptics would like nothing better than to get proof that alien visitors or paranormal events are real. But wanting it to be real isn't enough.

I'd suggest Carl Sagan as an example of someone who very much believed there almost had to be sentient life outside earth - but continued to apply scientific scrutiny to claims of UFOs.

[renie408]

327. I think that you should be skeptical....but with an open mind.

I think there is a difference between leaving a possibility open and saying you believe in something. I don't believe. I can't say they don't exist. All I can say is that I have currently not seen anything that leads me to believe they exist.

[OneGrassRoot]

328. The Freepers are probaby having a field day with these threads n/t

[Gidney N Cloyd]

330. Ironically, this from a columnist whose seen a lot of pink elephants. nt

[arrested_president]

331. Let's See, Some Astronauts Say They Exist

some people here say they don't


hmm...


whom to believe? whom to believe? that's gonna take me some time to sort out - such a hard choice

[NNN0LHI]

333. And with all the cameras astronauts carry with them they couldn't snap one single picture of them?

Thats funny.

Don

[arrested_president]

334. That Has Nothing To Do With The FACT

that some of them have gone on the record to say they've seen them and our gov suppressed it.

so, that's pretty much makes any armchair sage in this thread take a back seat

1. you don't have their level of security clearance

2. you have never been to space

3. you don't have their training

4. you haven't been in the various millitary bases they had access to

5. you can't possibly know what you're talking about


and, it has nothing to do with a IMMENSE craft floating over the entire state of AZ for 3 days and captured on video - and, verified by the governor as a UFO

or, the entire government of Belgium recording a wave of UFOs

i posted links that no one will address but, they continue to make comments about never seeing evidence

is that what a troll is?

not to accuse you of being one but, it's getting hard to tell the difference when you just blindly dispute without proof or examining the proof i've offered


are we discussing how the various sightings aren't really unusual events or are you just here to say nay for the sake of it?

[NNN0LHI]

335. And one astronaut wears diapers and another searches for Noah's Ark

Are you sure you know what you are talking about?

Don

[shadowknows69]

342. My grandmother wears diapers

and at 94 she's still smarter and quicker with wit than 80% of the people I know. Just because the body fails does not mean the mind follows.

[NNN0LHI]

348. Here is the astronaut I was referring to who was wearing the diaper

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/29/us/29astronaut.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Ex-Astronaut to Enter a Plea of Insanity on Assault Charges

Capt. Lisa M. Nowak, the Navy officer and former astronaut who confronted a romantic rival at the Orlando, Fla., airport in February, will plead insanity at her trial on assault and kidnapping charges, according to a notice filed yesterday in State Circuit Court in Orlando.

The filing notes that Captain Nowak has lost 15 percent of her body mass because of manic-depressive disorder. It also cites problems in her marriage and an inability to confide in friends or family members.

A Houston psychiatrist, Richard Pesikoff, who provided a defense diagnosis in the case of Andrea Yates, a Houston mother who killed her children, is expected to testify on Captain Nowak’s behalf, the filing states. Dr. Pesikoff declined to comment.

[mondo joe]

341. A personal opinion isn't worth anything. Get the empirical evidence, please.

Oops, you can't.

[yurbud]

339. be careful or they will use their psionic powers to pop your head or send bigfoot to poop on your

lawn.

[DS1]

340. I want to believe in UFOs and ESP, ghosts notsomuch

There's nothing wrong with holding out the possibility that in our Universe, someone else had a head start.

There are plenty of cases or married couples knowing each other has died, or is in danger

[NNN0LHI]

344. I bet for every time a married person knew their partner was dead or in danger...

...there were hundreds of other married persons who thought they "knew" the same thing but were wrong.

But no one documents when that occurs.

Its all hocus pocus.

Don

[northzax]

343. Well given that even more Americans

Believe that 2000 years ago god chose to knock up an obscure woman in the middle east. So pick your poison.

[librechik]

345. thanks, debunkers, for helping the PuKKKes with one of their favorite wedge issues

This is AMERICA. WE CAN BELIEVE WHAT WE WANT HERE.

Why don't you get all passionate about defending our right to believe in effing FAIRIES if we want.

Instead you want to jump on the Nazi bandwagon and try to silence us.

YOU are not helping.

[mondo joe]

346. Of course you can believe in fairies if you want. And we have the right to point out

idiocy if we want.

[mdmc]

347. How do you KNOW that they are not real?

The real problem is that people think that they KNOW everything.

100 years ago space flight was "impossible". All the sheeple thought so. They were wrong.

In an infinite universe, why would life only exist here?:shrug:

[Marrah_G]

349. Frankly whether or not you or anyone else believes in what I believe in makes zero impact on my life

You have ended the conversation before it even began.

So you don't believe in anything. So what?

Some people have had different experiences then you have had.

Your post makes you look like a jerk and someone I would never want to have a conversation with.