Your Opinions on the Paranormal?

I agree. his bias was put to the side and he offered very practical methods of testing "paranormal / superstitious" theories, He gave the impression that he would be willing to believe if only someone could prove something.
I liked his explaination of how most "proof" was anecdotal and personal which had absolutely no way of being shown to others.

I honestly think that these things are beliefs and wishes, if you look for a coincidence or correlation you will probably see it if you WANT to believe.
I don't want to discount peoples beliefs it may be a vital part to how humans operate some believe in proof and science and some believe in ghosts and spirits.

It does scare me that a person may take a child to some form of "spiritual healer" rather than a medical doctor because of their belief does scare me somewhat, and the growth of these through the internet may well herald the stagnation of modern science.

i remember when i was younger i used to beleave in UFO's my dad has always been fairly down to earth so he'd always be very sceptical about things like that when. i would talk about UFO's been real and he'd say well thats fine but lets see some evidence anyway one day i decided i'ed prove it to him so i went on the net and spent about 4-5 hours recearching trying to colect together a bullet proof case for UFO's. of course dureing this recearch it slowly started to dawn on me that there wasn't any hard proof and what little proof there was was increadably week at best or had been clearly been shown as a fraud or something natural. worse still the examples that had been shown to be frauds were still been refrenced on UFO websites as evidence. after alot of searching and finding non of the rock solid proof i had always just assumed had existed it started to dawn on me that my dad had been right all along. and suddenly when i thought about it i couldn't remember why i even started to beleave in the first place.

ultimately the idea just kinda got into my head and once it was there i was to stuborn to accept i could be wrong about it. hence why i didn't feel the need to check my facts. i've always assumed this is how people get takeing in by these things. and why i always try to double check my facts these days

That was Richard Dawkins, he also did one called The Root of All Evil? (not the title he wanted or agreed with) about religion. You can find it on Google Video. Saddly I missed this one, is it repeated, or on the web anywhere?

That's the fella I saw that advertised at the start of the "enemies of reason" show and agree would have loved to have seen it, he did make a couple of references to the detriment of organised religion which made me want to know what he'd said.

yes, he is spoken of with much despise in some of my religious groups

can I ask why fif? I'd like to know how religious groups feel about him and there reason for doing so.

Mynci, linkage for The Root of All Evil?

Part 1

Part 2

I'd seen these, I was asking of anyone had links to the new one, but I've since found one.

He's recently written a book called The God Delusion, the wikipedia article actually covers it very well and will give you a good flavour of the book and why it has upset some and elated others.

Cheers guys I found them and watched them last night.
Thanks Jeff. I get that but i was actually after the reason from someone who believes in what he is against. I can see it from the other side of the fence, but I can't understand, because I've never been there If you know what I mean. I've never felt the pull of unsubstantiated belief.

well, we feel it is substantiated-see the oh so active thread we had here when I first came in. and cause he is patronizing. He already has an idea in mind and simply looks for evidence to support it. If he had an open mind, perhaps someone on the fence-evidence might not look so overwhelming.
I believe in many paranormal things
don't like him and his style
he just encourages people to continue to be jerks to people who manage to beleive in something greater than themselves

thank you
I do Believe in the possibility of extra terrestrial life, I don't know it's form or function but do think that there is so much out there the chances of life being out there somewhere are true. I don't think they necessarily have space ships but do think something should be out there.

sorry if it was a bit reactionary of a response-check out a catholic group or the largest christian group on facebook and you can see the broad range of beliefs and the role of religion

i'ed disagree about dawkins not haveing an open mind he says over and over again that he is willing to beleave anything so long as it can be demonstrated with evidence. the reason he doesn't accept religion is because it requires you to beleave without or even sometimes inspite of the evidence. as a scientist hes unwilling to do that. and even if he was that would still leave him with 100,000's of religions to pick from and at most only one of them can be true.

actualy i'ed argue hes more open minded than most because he makes a point of ensureing his beleafs are falsifyable (he explains how someone could simply and difinitively prove him wrong) for example with the dousers if they had actualy found the water in the tests they would have shown he was wrong but he still put his beleafs on the line.

where as with many of the supporters of the paranormal do the exact opposite going to great lenghts to ensure they dont find them selfs in a situation in which there claimes could be disproved.

for example with religion evidence against his position would be something like the following and amputies lim regrowing, something huge god decending from the sky for example, a lack of junk DNA in the genome of a large animal and so on.

also i'ed like to point out that his position of "i wont beleave in something until i've seen evidence for it" is the only acceptable stance to take. for example if i said i was god you would demand proof BEFORE you beleaved you wouldnt just beleave me until someone disprove that i was god which is actualy imposable (because as god i could just want you to think i wasn't to test your faith).

evidence comes first belef comes after

ummm no...When I went to school, I learned about many things. Much of which I hadn't seen or seen evidence for. Bacteria. Believed in germs before I saw one. Also saw what germs could do before I saw one.

to be fair thats besides the point, there is penty of evidence if you ask to see some. also children are pre-programmed to believe figures of authourity because of the dangers inherent to trial and error at such a vulnerable state.

the question I worry about is the second coming of christ... if he did appear on earth who would believe him? would christians demand proof? or believe on faith because requiring proof would be a double standard.

faith appears to be a tricky concept, I think I'll leave it alone for a while...

now ghosts .... I think they're slightly different. people see "things" that haven't been explained yet and paranormal investigators use scientific apperatus to "search" for them. I think it's possible that they are natural effects that we haven't yet fully uncovered the reasons behind. if you substitue the word "ghost" for "unexplained phenomenon" you are closer to the mark especially for untampered photographs etc. I feel the act of doctored images to "prove" the existence of ghosts only does more harm.

those that talk to the dead... I honestly believe they are just plain crazy... (but then I have no proof so I'm not set in stone )

orbs, vague shapes, whatever people decide to call them, the fact some people claim too see orbs withoout photographing them could mean they are another phenomenon (although probably not)

I'll be honest even "evidence" recorded using equipment other than cameras - temperature changes, electromagnetic interferrence.. they are exactly what they say on the tin

I think the word Ghost is and has been used throught the ages for the unexplained, strange noises (wood, metal and other materials expanding / contracting through changes in heat or being moved by wind or other factors)

one of my teachers had a picture over Lourdes with the virgin mary-honest women...maybe not the developers though
very cool pic though

Personally I've had a couple of run ins with the paranormal, so for me it's a big yes on some scores.

Ghosts, OBEs etc are all "confirmed" in my mind as being possible even if not always perceivable or comprehendable.

Vampires and Werewolves etc ? While conditions exist which mimic these, the classic '50's horror movie stylee dosn't unfortunately ... otherwise I'd be a Werewolf-Vampire-Warlock-Zombie ... which, lets face it, would be rather amazing.

As for human potential etc - the brain is used in totality, we just only consciously have access to about 10% of the functions we use. Like a computer, we only have access, normally, the apps and bits on it, but it's running smeg loads of stuff in the background that allows it just exist. Always room for improvement/growth though and I think that other senses exist, just they're not needed as we don't need to percieve the things they'd allow us too.

God/Religion etc. Could go on for hoursssssssss about that, but won't. I have my beliefs but I also think a lot of Christianity and many other religions is flawed and should be discarded. The core beliefs about how to live your life etc are usually quite universal (Don't kill, don't be an annoyance, leave peacfully etc.) it's just the added "sprinkles" about festivals, names for gods, the stories told to show the core beliefs differ.

Anyway, I'm off to ask the Fairys how to speak with dead so's I find out where Lord Lucan is in case he'd with Elvis.....so I can tell him about another truly dire "revival" of his legacy is taking place just to make money. : D

ummm no...When I went to school, I learned about many things. Much of which I hadn't seen or seen evidence for. Bacteria. Believed in germs before I saw one.


yes but there is evidence for bacteria that you were told about, true you didn't personaly check it out but you could have if you so wished or if you douted them. so you reasoned that unless no one had ever check it out and they were lieing to you and banking that you wouldn't call there bluff (something increadably unlikely to work with 6 billion people on the planet) it was proberly true.

if your teaches had said this is germ theory there is no evidence for it would you still beleave them? as a child yes you proberly would, we tend to beleave what were told as children no matter how strange often clining to those belefs well into adult hood. but would you beleave it if you were told it for the first time as an adult with your reasoning and critical thinking full developed?

also you said it your self you had seen evidence for the effects of germs before you learned about them.
I also saw what germs could do before I saw one.