The Occult

Author: RoderickSpode

Posts

Total: 62
Topic's author
#1
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
A spiritual practice not discussed much in religious discussion.

I'm curious as to the thoughts on atheists on this subject.

To obtain proof of the bible, unless someone has a road to Damascus experience, one has to take certain steps to obtain proof for themself (as opposed to demanding it on-line in discussion forums).

With the occult, there's no question one has to literally practice the art. Otherwise, there's just no grounds for demanding proof.

I never practiced the art, but when I was a teen, I dabbled with a Ouija board. I thought that we had contacted a woman who died at the age of 30 in Spain. The object that moved around the board spelling out names and ages actually lifted off of the board at one moment, which is impossible since our fingers were barely touching the object. While I believe this to have been (for lack of a better term) spiritual experience, I know it wasn't a deceased woman from Spain that moved that object around on the board. I believe it came from the same origin as human contacts with the alleged deceased, ETs, and any other entity that appears to contact humans mentally, or telepathically.

What do you, atheists, from what you know consider the occult to be a product of?
#2
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@RoderickSpode
The Occult -
"relating to magical powers and activities, such as those of witchcraft and astrology:" [1]
"Mystical, supernatural, or magical powers, practices, or phenomena" [2] 
"the knowledge and study of supernatural or magical forces." [3]

Though not all of the definitions necessarily include your interpretation of the word "Occult" it can be fair to say that you do have a credited definition, as the Collins English Dictionary  does support the definition in the OG post, however, it does bring into question the OG's post validity in terms of what the BoP (Burden of Proof) has to say about these sorts of things. For context, the OG post says, and I quote:

"To obtain proof of the bible, unless someone has a road to Damascus experience, one has to take certain steps to obtain proof for themself (as opposed to demanding it on-line in discussion forums).

With the occult, there's no question one has to literally practice the art. Otherwise, there's just no grounds for demanding proof."

Let's look a little closer at what the burden of proof is, and see if this "practice" is excluded from it. Instead of just checking out the standard dictionaries, I will be consulting some more philosophically or argumentally inclined sources, as they are more topically educated or centered, and therefore take into consideration the actual things being addressed. I will also provide the traditional dictionary definitions for comparison. 

Also, just for some clarification, I will not be using the legal perspective of what the burden of proof is, as the the takes on it from the legal and philosophic views are radically different. Where in the legal sense, one side of the case has some sort of huge advantage, such as in a criminal trial, the defendent is innocent until proven guilty, and while this might work whenever talking about individual actions (notice I said "might"), this does not work in the case of assertions. 

The Burden of Proof - "The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi, shortened from Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position." [4]

Some might fault me for using the wikipedia's definition, however, whenever one considers the sources listed and verified for this specific page, I find it justified:
  1.  Cargile, James (January 1997). "On the burden of proof". Philosophy. Cambridge University Press. 72 (279): 59–83. doi:10.1017/s0031819100056655.
  2. ^ Marc Kaufman, First Contact: Scientific Breakthroughs in the Hunt for Life Beyond Earth, Simon and Schuster, p. 124.
  3. ^ Leite, Adam (2005). "A localist solution to the regress of justification". Australasian Journal of Philosophy. 83 (3): 395–421 [p. 418]. doi:10.1080/00048400500191974. [t]he point of articulating reasons in defense of one's belief is to establish that one is justified in believing as one does.
  4. ^ Leite, Adam (2005). "A localist solution to the regress of justification". Australasian Journal of Philosophy. 83 (3): 395–421 [p. 403]. doi:10.1080/00048400500191974. justificatory conversation...[is]...characterized by a person's sincere attempt to vindicate his or her entitlement to a belief by providing adequate reasons in its defense and responding to objections.
  5. ^ Dennett, Daniel C. (July 1988). "Review of Psychosemantics by Jerry Fodor". The Journal of Philosophy. 85 (7): 384–389 (389). doi:10.2307/2026956. JSTOR 2026956. 
  6. ^ Rodych, Victor (1996) [1986]. "Wittgenstein's inversion of Gödel's theorem". In Shanker, Stuart; Kilfoyle, David (eds.). Ludwig Wittgenstein: critical assessments. 2. The later Wittgenstein: from Philosophical investigations to On certainty. London; New York: Routledge. pp. 232–265 (261). ISBN 0415149150. OCLC 47938413. Thus, in 1991 Wang seems to understand why Wittgenstein rejects GIT, but, apparently favouring the "onus game" (or "burden tennis"), he unfortunately concludes (pp. 257–58) that "the burden of proof falls ... squarely on Wittgenstein's side" because of Wang's own 'principle of presumed innocence'.
  7. ^ Abelson, Robert P. (1995). "Credibility of argument". Statistics as principled argument. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. p. 170. ISBN 0805805273. OCLC 31011850. When research presentations advance claims that many or most readers deem incredible, these claims are vulnerable to severe challenge. In response, there will typically be a rebuttal by the investigator, and then a fresh round of criticism. The burden of proof shifts back and forth between the investigator and the critic in what might be called the game of 'burden tennis'.
  8. ^ "Argumentum ad Ignorantiam". Philosophy 103: Introduction to Logic. Lander University. 2004. Archived from the original on 30 April 2009. Retrieved 2009-04-29.
  9. ^ Dowden, Bradley. "Appeal to ignorance". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 2016-02-24.
  10. ^ Jump up to:a b Hales, Steven D. (Summer 2005). "Thinking tools: You can prove a negative"(PDF). Think. Cambridge University Press. 4 (10): 109–112. doi:10.1017/S1477175600001287.
This is only half of them, with some of the citations shortened to not take up as much room. I also think that this is the most commonly understood definition of the Burden of Proof, or that, whenever someone makes a claim, they have the burden to provide some sort of evidence to fulfill their assertion, otherwise any reasonable person is justified in not accepting the proposition. Here are the more standard definitions from the regular dictionaries:

"The obligation to prove one's assertion." [5]
"the responsibility for proving something" [6]
"the duty of proving a disputed assertion or charge" [7]

I think that based on the other definitions, and the list of philosophic journals that Wikipedia used to qualify their standard of the burden of proof, that the definition provided by Wikipedia is usable. Let's take another look at the "Occult" and compare it now to our definition of the Burden of Proof, and see if it is actually justifiable to say that the occult does not have to fulfill that burden. 

BoP -The burden of proof is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position
Occult - The knowledge and study of supernatural or magical forces

Well then, even the definition of Occult is an assertion into itself, as many philosophic teacher or student can tell you, the actual definition of knowledge is very hard to pinpoint exactly, but for this discussion we can use the classic, "Justified true belief", therefore the definition of Occult is saying that it is possible or at least theoretically possible to have a justified true belief in the supernatural or magical forces; however, technically it could be referring to untrue supernatural magic or forces, so the Occult definition doesn't necessarily have any burden of proof. 

However, to claim that one does have some sort of knowledge on the Occult, and that the magic or supernatural forces being discussed are real, that is an assertion, and therefore does require evidence to back it up. Saying that you have practiced Occult, and clarifying that the practice happened in actuality, is a claim, and therefore, in order to have any warrant, must have evidence. I'll provide something similar as an example, just so that everyone can wrap their head around the concept of the Burden of Proof. Let's take being the best chief on the planet.

Now, these aren't exactly analogous, but the concept remains the same: One can be a chief, and that requires relatively little evidence, just as someone can technically have "occult" knowledge just by reading Harry Potter. However the qualifier of "best" is what demands proper evidence and incites the BoP. The qualifier of "real" or in this case "practice" with the context that the practice occured, is what demands the burden of proof. Therefore, just because something must be "practiced" does not excuse it from demonstrating that that practice can actually occur, and isn't something else, that the practice is supernatural or magical forces. 

Therefore, the entire thing of, "one has to take certain steps to obtain proof for themself" is false, unless they specifically claim that the Occult is false, the one that claims that they have practiced occult to real effect because of supernatural or magical forces, must also demonstrate that claim. Because it is a claim, adding in an extra caveat of it being, "practiced" has no effect on the actual burden of proof. Due to the parenthesized line right after it: "as opposed to demanding it on-line in discussion forums" I believe the order to be of a biased conclusion on the OG's poster's behalf. Therefore he does have the burden of providing evidence for what he claims to have occured.
#3
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@RoderickSpode
THE EVENT ITSELF

I dabbled with a Ouija board. I thought that we had contacted a woman who died at the age of 30 in Spain. The object that moved around the board spelling out names and ages actually lifted off of the board at one moment, which is impossible since our fingers were barely touching the object. While I believe this to have been (for lack of a better term) spiritual experience, I know it wasn't a deceased woman from Spain that moved that object around on the board. I believe it came from the same origin as human contacts with the alleged deceased, ETs, and any other entity that appears to contact humans mentally, or telepathically.

To clarify all objects involved:

I- RoderickSpode; A member of the online debating website "DebateArt.com"
Ouija Board - "a board printed with letters, numbers, and other signs, to which a planchette or movable indicator points, supposedly in answer to questions from people at a seance"
Contacted Spirit - a woman who died at the age of 30 in Spain

Some background on the Oujia Board, and what scientists believe the effect to come from:
The participants were equipped with eye tracking devices so that the researchers could study their — largely unconscious — predictive eye movements. That is, the researchers wanted to see if the participants first glanced at the letters they would later move the planchette to.

As the scientists explain, a person’s sense of agency, or the feeling that one has control over their actions, arises primarily from the brain’s ability to predict “the sensory consequences of an action, and then [compare] this prediction [with] the actual consequences. When prediction and consequence match, the result is the feeling that ‘I did that.'”

Andersen and team examined the participants’ eye movements in two different conditions: the “voluntary action condition” and the “Ouija condition.”

In the first condition, the participants — who worked in pairs — were asked to move the planchette deliberately to spell the word “Baltimore” or to point to “Yes” and “No,” respectively. In the Ouija condition, the participants were asked to use the board as they normally would.

The researchers then analyzed the recordings of the participants’ eye movements. When analyzing the data, they examined both the individual eye movements and the eye movements on a “pair level.”

Additionally, the researchers administered questionnaires to the participants that enquired about how strongly they believed in the “abilities” of the Ouija board, as well as their overall level of religiosity and spirituality.

As expected, the data analysis revealed that participants made more predictive eye movements in the voluntary condition than they did in the regular one.

Unsurprisingly, given the underlying mechanisms of the sense of agency, the participants reported feeling much less in control in the Ouija condition than they did in the voluntary one.

However, when the researchers looked to see whether at least one participant in each pair made a predictive eye movement, they found some interesting results.

“[W]hen we look at the pair level, we see that pairs in the ‘Ouija condition’ on average predict the letters of meaningful responses as well as isolated individuals do when purposely spelling responses in the ‘voluntary action condition.'”

“In other words, a pair that moves the Ouija planchette in a predominantly non-deliberate way collectively predict letters as well as an individual seen in isolation that is moving the planchette on purpose.”
So, when the Ouija board was used as usual, at least one participant knew where the planchette was going.

“Our study suggests,” say its authors, “that successful Ouija board sessions critically depend on joint action.” The “spooky” or “paranormal” feeling that Ouija boards induce is due to the fact that participants take turns in predicting the next letter.

In addition, they say, “it appears that participants in the ‘Ouija condition’ generally underestimate their own contribution to the joint interaction.”

This is supported by previous research on force escalation that showed that “self-generated forces are generally perceived as weaker than external forces of the same magnitude,” explain Andersen and colleagues.

Finally, in addition to the joint predictive effort and the underestimation of one’s movements, belief in the Ouija board’s abilities also added to the “spooky” feeling. Participants who said that they thought the board can facilitate communication with spirits were more likely to report that the planchette had moved on its own.

What can we take away from this? Well first of all, that people are more often than not controlling the planchette, even if they think they aren't: “it appears that participants in the ‘Ouija condition’ generally underestimate their own contribution to the joint interaction.” It also means that the likely hood of what RoderickSpode described is little to none, as RoderickSpode has not provided any evidence that the Occult is real in any regard we are forced to ask the question: Was RoderickSpode tricked by the board and basic psychology as many teenagers and adults are, or is the entire world of the Occult, unproven, reality? 

There is, of course, an obvious answer to this question. 

Before I provide it, I want to go more in depth into the pre-written defenses by the OG poster, most likely assuming that the one who would respond would have some sort of argument against Ouija boards in general, and indeed, I have, but let's see if RoderickSpode's defenses actually hold up to criticism. The OG post has only one defense, and that is, as follows:

The object that moved around the board spelling out names and ages actually lifted off of the board at one moment, which is impossible since our fingers were barely touching the object.
The human finger is actually capable of some incredible feats, even lifting 400 pounds with the middle finger [8], but also in times of intense emotion or even action, people can radically misjudge where their finger is located, it is entirely possible that you grabbed onto the piece more than before and were able to lift it. Planchettes are often light weight pieces of wood, weighing no more than a light gram-mage, perhaps at no more than 50 or so, maybe some special planchette's do, but we have no reason to believe that the sort of object used was heavy enough that a misjudged finger placement could not have lifted it. 

There is no reason to accept any of the claims here, and it is more than possible that RoderickSpode is: A) Lying about the experience, B) Misremembering the experience, C) Attributing the Occult to something that is fairly common. 

Topic's author
#4
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@Theweakeredge

Therefore, the entire thing of, "one has to take certain steps to obtain proof for themself" is false, unless they specifically claim that the Occult is false, the one that claims that they have practiced occult to real effect because of supernatural or magical forces, must also demonstrate that claim. Because it is a claim, adding in an extra caveat of it being, "practiced" has no effect on the actual burden of proof. Due to the parenthesized line right after it: "as opposed to demanding it on-line in discussion forums" I believe the order to be of a biased conclusion on the OG's poster's behalf. Therefore he does have the burden of providing evidence for what he claims to have occured.
I understand.

However, the only reason I can think of to need to provide proof is if I'm insisting that you accept something as truth. And I don't do that with the Gospel/Bible, or anything else spiritually related. So unless someone is telling you to accept that the occult is really contacting spiritual beings, then there's no burden of proof for an occultist.

It's about what each individual wants. Unless someone is demanding that you accept the resurrection of Christ, then there's no burden of proof laid on us anymore than on you concerning any claim to the contrary. If you genuinely interested, what you really relegate yourself to
demanding proof from a discussion forum?

Now atheist skeptics seem to take a lot of liberty in making claims about the bible being written by ignorant peasants. And I think that does include you, do you think, say, Alistair Crowley's religion was written by ignorant peasants?
#5
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@RoderickSpode
I never claimed that "ignorant peasants" wrote the bible, I do claim, that a lot of the bible is written by "Unnamed Authors", quote:

"in spite of these attributions, most scholars do not think any of these men were the original gospel writers. None of the gospels is written in a style that suggests the authors was present at the events being narrated. Nor is it likely that the disciples of Jesus were able to write in Greek, the language in which the gospels were written. So we are left with the reality that the gospels were written by anonymous Christians decades after the events that they relate"

Therefore, it is impossible to determine the actual literacy rate or education of the bible, to claim either they were educated or that they were uneducated, would require further evidence. 

Furthermore, as someone who holds the whole, "Supernatural occurrences are impossible because they happen outside of the natural, and the natural is all their is from the evidence we have" No, I do not think they happen. I think it is far more likely that one of the literal millions of explanations cover what people misconstrue as "The occult" and I have failed to see any comprehensive test to demonstrate the supernatural, despite some practices (such as the Ouija Board) being highly testable. Not only that, but even the "evidence" which we do have, is the lowest form of evidence, with contradicting accounts that with sources that often time double back.

Topic's author
#6
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@Theweakeredge
The human finger is actually capable of some incredible feats, even lifting 400 pounds with the middle finger [8], but also in times of intense emotion or even action, people can radically misjudge where their finger is located, it is entirely possible that you grabbed onto the piece more than before and were able to lift it. Planchettes are often light weight pieces of wood, weighing no more than a light gram-mage, perhaps at no more than 50 or so, maybe some special planchette's do, but we have no reason to believe that the sort of object used was heavy enough that a misjudged finger placement could not have lifted it. 
Explanations like this are a dime a dozen.

The problem is that when someone provides information like this, it gets treated like "The Answer". The problem that the item cannot be lifted in the air unless our fingers were supporting it somehow (rocket science at it's finest hour) won't really be dealt with because typically a number of people feel these pseudo-debunkings are written in gold. I'm guessing you're so focused on the goldenness of the explanation that you think it covers all bases of the occult. You might say something like "maybe your fingers were sticky".


There is no reason to accept any of the claims here, and it is more than possible that RoderickSpode is: A) Lying about the experience, B) Misremembering the experience, C) Attributing the Occult to something that is fairly common. 
First off, I provided this info simply to let one know of my experience with the occult. Do you think that a Ouija board is not a part of the occult?

Why would these 3 claims be more than possible?

What is a commonality about the occult? Can you give some examples?
#7
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@RoderickSpode
Again, I am not trying to debunk Occult as a whole, as I think they are categorically false, and I have no need to do that. Second, you have basically just hand waved off the explanation, the point of it is - even if the occult was real, that explanation would be the more plausible one, especially with no evidence in your favor. Again, your finger's could have easily been supporting the planchette (Note that you do not have to put your fingers underneath a coin to lift it, it is perfectly possible to grab onto the edges and lift it, with more people this is even easier), heck, your fingers could have been underneath it and you are:

A) Lying, you could just be making it up that your fingers weren't underneath it, you have no way to prove that you aren't lying (as you have motivation to lie) unless you show video evidence and something showing that you haven't doctored it. Not only that, but people lie about stuff like this all the time, its not like its hard to believe that someone would lie about this, especially with the low stakes you are under.

B) Not remembering the occurence correctly. This is another thing that happens fairly often, in fact, human minds are notoriously bad at keeping details straight, and this is another more than likely thing to have happened - in fact - you could be both lying and misremembering, or you could be doing one or the other. With misremembering, this is most likely what happened period, as, this happens to most memories in general. 

C) You simply misconstrued where you're fingers were in the first place, you might think you were "barely touching it" when in reality you could have been supporting more than the entire weight of the planchette. I see no reason to dismiss this as a possibility, and in fact, happens again, very notoriously. Especially with things such as cards, coins, and yes, even planchettes. It happens so often that an entire style of "magic" tricks have been made using that fact (Card Tricks). 

The fact is, your experience was not of the sort of Occult you said existed (which is a claim by the way, regardless of if you want other people to accept it, therefore you still must provide evidence for it). Secondly, you did not at all consider any of the literal study by experts regarding this entire topic of Ouija boards, which give me further credence. I see no reason to believe that you were not supporting the planchette in some regard, rather you mistakingly thought you had, remembered not supporting it, or are lying about the experience. 
Topic's author
#8
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@Theweakeredge
I'm not sure if you understood that my mentioning the Ouija board experience was to reveal my limited exposure to the occult. But since you mentioned it:


Again, I am not trying to debunk Occult as a whole, as I think they are categorically false, and I have no need to do that. Second, you have basically just hand waved off the explanation, the point of it is - even if the occult was real, that explanation would be the more plausible one, especially with no evidence in your favor. Again, your finger's could have easily been supporting the planchette (Note that you do not have to put your fingers underneath a coin to lift it, it is perfectly possible to grab onto the edges and lift it, with more people this is even easier), heck, your fingers could have been underneath it and you are:

A) Lying, you could just be making it up that your fingers weren't underneath it, you have no way to prove that you aren't lying (as you have motivation to lie) unless you show video evidence and something showing that you haven't doctored it. Not only that, but people lie about stuff like this all the time, its not like its hard to believe that someone would lie about this, especially with the low stakes you are under.

B) Not remembering the occurence correctly. This is another thing that happens fairly often, in fact, human minds are notoriously bad at keeping details straight, and this is another more than likely thing to have happened - in fact - you could be both lying and misremembering,

or you could be doing one or the other. With misremembering, this is most likely what happened period, as, this happens to most memories in general. 

C) You simply misconstrued where you're fingers were in the first place, you might think you were "barely touching it" when in reality you could have been supporting more than the entire weight of the planchette. I see no reason to dismiss this as a possibility, and in fact, happens again, very notoriously. Especially with things such as cards, coins, and yes, even planchettes. It happens so often that an entire style of "magic" tricks have been made using that fact (Card Tricks). 

The fact is, your experience was not of the sort of Occult you said existed (which is a claim by the way, regardless of if you want other people to accept it, therefore you still must provide evidence for it). Secondly, you did not at all consider any of the literal study by experts regarding this entire topic of Ouija boards, which give me further credence. I see no reason to believe that you were not supporting the planchette in some regard, rather you mistakingly thought you had, remembered not supporting it, or are lying about the experience. 
Again I have to ask,


Why would these 3 claims be more than possible?


What is a commonality about the occult? Can you give some examples?

You're making a claim without any support to it.

First off, I resent (in a humorous way) how you're suggesting my teen years were so long ago that I don't remember it well enough.....(key emphasis on lol).

So you didn't use my sticky finger theory. Why would it be more likely that I without knowing placed my finger underneath the device?

Why would lying be one of the more probable answers? Why are any of them more probable?

Why do you even think I might be lying?



Topic's author
#9
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@Theweakeredge
Being that Ouija board experiences are relatively low-key, or trivial within occult practice, what do you think the answer is to spirit guides occultists claim to have like Alistair Crowley would be?
#10
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@RoderickSpode
I am a little tired of your continued questioning, I already explained myself: I do not think any supernatural thing is possible, at all, it literally defies reality. Until someone can demonstrate that their is more than reality, this remains true. Therefore any alternative solution is more likely than the supernatural. Not only that, I explained, again, why they are probable in each step, its like you didn't even read the entire thing. If you won't actually engage with my answers, I see no reason to spend further time actually giving you answers, as you ignore half of them anyway, and you don't have any actual valid criticisms of them.
Topic's author
#11
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@Theweakeredge

I am a little tired of your continued questioning, I already explained myself: I do not think any supernatural thing is possible, at all, it literally defies reality. Until someone can demonstrate that their is more than reality, this remains true. Therefore any alternative solution is more likely than the supernatural. Not only that, I explained, again, why they are probable in each step, its like you didn't even read the entire thing. If you won't actually engage with my answers, I see no reason to spend further time actually giving you answers, as you ignore half of them anyway, and you don't have any actual valid criticisms of them.
Sure. If you're just giving me your personal opinion, and just wanted me not to respond, fine.
#12
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@RoderickSpode
Literally all I ask is that you actually engage in my arguments instead of saying, "I don't see what you mean" and "Explain more", that doesn't seem like that much effort. 
Topic's author
#13
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@Theweakeredge
And I did read the article by the way. I understand what they're saying. I found from experience that it didn't work with everyone. The Ouija board is just a created device.
Topic's author
#14
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@Theweakeredge
Literally all I ask is that you actually engage in my arguments instead of saying, "I don't see what you mean" and "Explain more", that doesn't seem like that much effort. 
I'm asking you to explain why your 3 examples are more likely. From I gathered, you're just stating your personal opinion.

So there's quite a bit of effort in understanding what you're implying. Do you not want me to understand?

I don't know why you would object to questions being asked you?
#15
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@RoderickSpode
Except nothing about that is personal opinion, it is literally true that something that is "supernatural" happens outside of the realm of natural-ity, and you have not at all, nor do I believe anyone, to have suffciently demonstrated another realm to exist. Until this realm has been proven to exist, nothing supernatural could happen. Therefore, literally, any solution that isn't a 0 on the plausibility chain is more likely than the occult.
Topic's author
#16
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@Theweakeredge

Except nothing about that is personal opinion, it is literally true that something that is "supernatural" happens outside of the realm of natural-ity, and you have not at all, nor do I believe anyone, to have suffciently demonstrated another realm to exist. Until this realm has been proven to exist, nothing supernatural could happen. Therefore, literally, any solution that isn't a 0 on the plausibility chain is more likely than the occult.
That's not what I meant by personal opinion.

But what do you mean by supernatural?

A Bic lighter may have been considered supernatural to primitive tribes when they first saw it, but not to the foreigners who exposed them to it. For us to create a universe with life might require the supernatural, but not to a God/creator.

Your last comment seems to imply that either the occult doesn't exist, or that only certain claims are most likely not the occult.

Sorry, but I have to ask questions if I'm to understand you.

Unless....you don't want me to understand you.


Topic's author
#17
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@Theweakeredge
The fact is, your experience was not of the sort of Occult you said existed (which is a claim by the way, regardless of if you want other people to accept it, therefore you still must provide evidence for it). Secondly, you did not at all consider any of the literal study by experts regarding this entire topic of Ouija boards, which give me further credence. I see no reason to believe that you were not supporting the planchette in some regard, rather you mistakingly thought you had, remembered not supporting it, or are lying about the experience. 
I'll address a little further your link you thought I was avoiding.

First off, a Ouija board is a bit unique since it's a manufactured occult-related product, literally sold in toy stores like Toys R' Us. What I found was that when I tried it alone, it wouldn't work. When I tried it with another particular person, nothing happened. When the person asked the question to the board, "where did Jimi Hendrix hide his money?", I kind of knew it wouldn't. When I tried it alone, it did seem to move effortlessly, but it went according to where I wanted it to go, so that may very well have been simple mental
suggestion. So I think I know pretty much exactly what that article was talking about.

However, when it was with a particular person, there seemed to be a pulling force that could not, scientifically speaking, involve simple mental suggestion.


However, it would be unlikely to find Alistair Crowley's books in a toy store. And Crowley, like a number of people in history claimed a spirit guide.


I addressed ETs earlier.

A common occult practice is channeling.

In 2008 a woman who practiced channeling claimed to have been communicating with extraterrestrials that claimed a mothership would appear over the State of Alabama on a particular date. People were intrigued by this because the woman had a lot to lose in terms of
reputation if it didn't happen. And of course, it didn't.


The woman eventually concluded that the particular ETs she contacted were deceiving. There seems to be an obvious pattern to realizing that there is an evil force beyond the human realm, whether it be demons, ghosts, or even ETs which are not typically associated with the spiritual realm (apparently even among Christians).

In my opinion, more than likely this supports the concept that both truth and deception exist outside of humanity.

If this is true, then it wouldn't be unlikely that a spiritual force may engage itself in Ouija board activity at given moments. But because of the marketed aspect of the product, may not function the same way as other occult practices.

By the way, I asked you why you thought I might be lying. I have to correct myself there because I saw where you did give that explanation.

But, it's inclusion weakens the other claims because you apparently see that the other suggestions are shaky at best. If this wasn't the case, there would have been no need to include it.
#18
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@RoderickSpode
First of all, their is a marked difference between asking questions for specific things in order for more clarity, and not engaging particular arguments and dismissing them with questions. You have done the second, notice that the only part you actually talked about was the finger part not supporting the weight, which is just untrue, as, you have no presented no evidence that the supernatural exist, the planchette apparantly lifted up, and it is very possible that people mistake what they actually did in occurances, therefore the most reasonable explanation is that you were supporting the planchette with your fingers and one of the three I posited above are true.

But, it's inclusion weakens the other claims because you apparently see that the other suggestions are shaky at best. If this wasn't the case, there would have been no need to include it
You are literally wrong in EVERY regard here. I see the other suggestions as MORE likely than the others actually, I don't see that you specifically are more likely to lie, I simply include the bit about lying because I can't definitively rule out the possibility. I explained ALL of them, your logic is not at all polished here. There are actually three reasons I included it: It is very common for people to do, I couldn't strictly rule it out as a plausible outcome, and it does fulfill Occam's Razor very nicely. You were just super wrong there.


In 2008 a woman who practiced channeling claimed to have been communicating with extraterrestrials that claimed a mothership would appear over the State of Alabama on a particular date. People were intrigued by this because the woman had a lot to lose in terms of
reputation if it didn't happen. And of course, it didn't.
There are lots of reasons she could have made these claims: A) She wanted clout, it might seem like that is untrue because "reputation" but then you would not be familiar with the modern age, people want clout regardless if it's good or not, it could be a very simple case that the woman have wanted to have attention pulled on her. B) She genuinely believed it, so what? People believe all sorts of things that are incorrect all the time based on "personal experience" unless you are every single religion simultaneously, than you agree that somebody has misconstrued some personal experience to mean something that it doesn't. Honestly, the whole, "had lots or reputation to lose" means less than nothing.


The woman eventually concluded that the particular ETs she contacted were deceiving. There seems to be an obvious pattern to realizing that there is an evil force beyond the human realm, whether it be demons, ghosts, or even ETs which are not typically associated with the spiritual realm (apparently even among Christians).
What? That is a non-sequitur, the more plausible explanation - she realized she was wrong and was attempting to rationalize it, it happens to victims of denial millions of times a day. How the hell does: "Woman was incorrect about alien ship siting" translate to "Pattern recognizing evil objectively" if you are trying to argue that good and evil are subjective, I disagree, and humans thinking anything on the matter is literally definitionally subjective. Not only that, but "X didn't do what they said they would do, therefore x was lying" Is not some great leap in logic nor even a claim about evil, it's saying that X said something knowing that it would not comport to reality, thats a description of an event, it has literally nothing to do with evil. All of these other things are "evil" because millenniums of human tradition and story has led us to having "evil creatures" baked into the fabric of society.


In my opinion, more than likely this supports the concept that both truth and deception exist outside of humanity
That makes literally no sense, your own story did not support that, let's look at this: The woman was the one to say that the aliens were being deceptive, not the aliens, not only that, but there was no moral weight here ANYWHERE, the mere act of being deceptive is just a descriptor, of course truth exists elsewhere, truth is just the act of something comporting with reality, but any supernatural or mystical implications are untrue. It should also be noted that the truth I am saying exists everywhere is literally just: What is true, no moral weight to that, morals are subjective. 


However, when it was with a particular person, there seemed to be a pulling force that could not, scientifically speaking, involve simple mental suggestion.
An appeal to ignorance isn't an argument, it was a mental suggestion, and you didn't catch the fact that it was a mental suggestion, its that simple. Just because you don't think it was, doesn't mean it wasn't. The "pulling" was probably the other person, you aren't the one being subjected to mental suggestion every time, it is just as likely that another person could be tricked by it. Again, this continued stance that, "It doesn't seem scientific" isn't really an argument. 

As for Alistair Crowley, I had never heard of him until now, and as I see it: he seemed like a traumatized, sexually repressed preacher, who lashed out with nihilism and other things whenever the entire world shamed him, leading to his lifestyle of old school satanism and literally drinking a cat's blood one time. I have no idea what he did "Occult-ly" so I have no idea what to debunk there
#19
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,223
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@RoderickSpode
I would suggest that any unproven or unprovable, hypothesis or theory fits the definition of occult.

Though "occult" is typically marketed as spooky or sinister activities.


#20
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,312
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
"Occult"   simply means hidden (knowledge) and not necessarily ""evil or "satanic" or just bad..
#21
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@RoderickSpode
I'm curious as to the thoughts on atheists on this subject.

Lol, you should probably pretty much guess what an atheist is going to believe about this sort of topic. It's certainly not going to be anything productive or open-minded...

I never practiced the art,

The term itself is not one thing or another, or synonymous with any particular branch of spirituality/religion though at the same time can be applied to ANY specific belief system because the term is contingent on participation and then observation which is interfacing with a reality that correlates with that which exists beyond the immediate physical world. Mysticism, clairvoyance, spiritual practices and or abilities are available to any spiritual participant whether that's Christianity or any other religious practice.
It could be argued that Jesus was certainly a Mystic, certainly clairvoyant and certainly had spiritual abilities one could label "magic". The OT prophets were certainly into spiritism/mysticism and the like....There's somewhat of a misconception or this idea that supernatural ability belongs to witchcraft or dark forces but that's most certainly not so.

There's more occult activities and supernatural practices in the Bible than any other book. I was always prone to clairvoyance even as a young kid, and I was very interested in that side of the Bible with being able to observe spiritual beings, having visions, laying on of hands, spiritual gifts, fasting, intersession, tongues, prophesies ect ect so it was very clear to me that Christianity was not just about beliefs but certainly about interfacing with that reality from application and observation. At least that's how I always saw it. 
As a matter of fact that's one of the things that began to turn me off about the general organized church system is that it always seemed so dead to me, in other words not alive and active and I never understood that because my relationship with God was very active. 
In terms of interaction with spiritual forces, that doesn't just apply to the dark side, not in any stretch of the imagination. So it's kind of funny these terms are considered heretic by any Bible follower, or maybe they just believe that spiritual ability and observations just apply to those characters in the Bible which I find absolutely hilarious. That reminds me of the Baptists who assume spiritual gifts no longer apply to God's people lol. And anyone who happens to have clairvoyant abilities are considered demonic, how very unfortunate that is because IMO Christianity should be the forerunner of all spiritual power and force, which includes spiritual gifts and abilities. Perhaps that will come back in full operation but right now the Church is in many ways dead. It's all about the politics instead of the active spiritual force that it is, and many unbelievers want to observe something real! Jesus was the perfect example in bringing an active relationship to this planet with maximum abilities and what did He say? that we would do the same and yet greater?? what happened with that??
Sorry to ramble there, this topic is an interesting thing for me so I'm glad you brought it up. 
Topic's author
#22
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@EtrnlVw

Lol, you should probably pretty much guess what an atheist is going to believe about this sort of topic. It's certainly not going to be anything productive or open-minded...
I'm glad you mentioned this because the intention is not to exclude non-atheists.

That being said, you're more than welcome to ramble in any thread of mine anytime. You have interesting things to contribute.


In terms of interaction with spiritual forces, that doesn't just apply to the dark side, not in any stretch of the imagination. So it's kind of funny these terms are considered heretic by any Bible follower, or maybe they just believe that spiritual ability and observations just apply to those characters in the Bible which I find absolutely hilarious. That reminds me of the Baptists who assume spiritual gifts no longer apply to God's people lol.

I try to keep open-minded on the subject as I know that Christianity has a history of well-intention believers who try and stifle another believer's spiritual gift because they think it from Satan when it's from God. An example that I'm thinking of actually involves a remote tribe where a mass conversion took place. The missionaries had the idea that when these tribal members played their drums, they were summoning demons, and so instructed them to stop. They possible did for awhile, but a tribe leader eventually responded by telling the missionaries they will not stop playing their drums as that was their cultural way of worshiping God.

But back to what you've been saying, these verses have intrigued me for awhile. Maybe you have some insight?

2 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

Of course there's different opinions on whether these maggi were astrologers in the forbidden sense, or simply very wise men who understood the movement of the stars.


Topic's author
#23
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@Theweakeredge

First of all, their is a marked difference between asking questions for specific things in order for more clarity, and not engaging particular arguments and dismissing them with questions. You have done the second, notice that the only part you actually talked about was the finger part not supporting the weight, which is just untrue, as, you have no presented no evidence that the supernatural exist, the planchette apparantly lifted up, and it is very possible that people mistake what they actually did in occurances, therefore the most reasonable explanation is that you were supporting the planchette with your fingers and one of the three I posited above are true.
I'm sorry, but no, we were not supporting the planchette in any way shape or form. We were barely touching the very top of it. Think of touching something with just your fingernails.

You'll have to come up with a different theory. Although, I'm not trying to prove anything about Ouija boards other than stating my limited experience with the occult.


You are literally wrong in EVERY regard here. I see the other suggestions as MORE likely than the others actually, I don't see that you specifically are more likely to lie, I simply include the bit about lying because I can't definitively rule out the possibility. I explained ALL of them, your logic is not at all polished here. There are actually three reasons I included it: It is very common for people to do, I couldn't strictly rule it out as a plausible outcome, and it does fulfill Occam's Razor very nicely. You were just super wrong there.
Here's what I meant.


"A) Lying, you could just be making it up that your fingers weren't underneath it, you have no way to prove that you aren't lying (as you have motivation to lie) unless you show video evidence and something showing that you haven't doctored it. Not only that, but people lie about stuff like this all the time, its not like its hard to believe that someone would lie about this, especially with the low stakes you are under."

  You stated I have motivation to lie, and my stakes are low enough to where it might be necessary.

In other words, there must be something to my claim that makes the other explanations difficult. Like if someone told me they saw an oasis in the desert when they were dying of thirst. I don't need to consider the possibility of them lying (even though theoretically possible) in that the obvious explanation is mirage/optical illusion. There's nothing in the statement of seeing an oasis that would cause need for concern of lying.

There are lots of reasons she could have made these claims: A) She wanted clout, it might seem like that is untrue because "reputation" but then you would not be familiar with the modern age, people want clout regardless if it's good or not, it could be a very simple case that the woman have wanted to have attention pulled on her. B) She genuinely believed it, so what? People believe all sorts of things that are incorrect all the time based

on "personal experience" unless you are every single religion simultaneously, than you agree that somebody has misconstrued some personal experience to mean something that it doesn't. Honestly, the whole, "had lots or reputation to lose" means less than nothing.

The whole "had lots of reputation to lose" are what others have observed.


What? That is a non-sequitur, the more plausible explanation - she realized she was wrong and was attempting to rationalize it, it happens to victims of denial millions of times a day. How the hell does: "Woman was incorrect about alien ship siting" translate to "Pattern recognizing evil objectively" if you are trying to argue that good and evil are subjective, I disagree, and humans thinking anything on the matter is literally definitionally subjective. Not only that, but "X didn't do what they said they would do, therefore x was lying" Is not some great leap in logic nor even a claim about evil, it's saying that X said something knowing that it would not comport to reality, thats a description of an event, it has literally nothing to do with evil. All of these other things are "evil" because millenniums of human tradition and story has led us to having "evil creatures" baked into the fabric of society.


You've stated that anything outside of the natural can be dismissed. I'm sure you're aware of the disclosure concerning UFO documentation. Valid reliable official sources have stated that these are not natural (as we know it) phenomenons, and appear to originate from highly intelligent forces or beings. It's no longer (officially speaking) science fiction. Would you dismiss the possibility that maybe the woman contacted a source originating from the disclosed phenomena?

That makes literally no sense, your own story did not support that, let's look at this: The woman was the one to say that the aliens were being deceptive, not the aliens, not only that, but there was no moral weight here ANYWHERE, the mere act of being deceptive is just a descriptor, of course truth exists elsewhere, truth is just the act of something comporting with reality, but any supernatural or mystical implications are untrue. It should also be noted that the truth I am saying exists everywhere is literally just: What is true, no moral weight to that, morals are subjective. 


I'm sorry but I have to ask, why would deceivers state or admit they are deceivers?

I'm not sure what doesn't make sense. Most religions acknowledging deities refer to light and darkness, good and evil, etc. That's what I'm getting at, and don't see any conflict with my statement.




An appeal to ignorance isn't an argument, it was a mental suggestion, and you didn't catch the fact that it was a mental suggestion, its that simple.
Just because you don't think it was, doesn't mean it wasn't. The "pulling" was probably the other person, you aren't the one being subjected to mental suggestion every time, it is just as likely that another person could be tricked by it. Again, this continued stance that, "It doesn't seem scientific" isn't really an argument. 
It doesn't really matter because I'm not trying to make any particular truth claim about Ouja boards, but grabbing your bait anyway, think of you in a tug-of-war event at a family picnic. Imagine someone telling you the resistance you were feeling came from the person in front of you. Do you see how silly that sounds?


As for Alistair Crowley, I had never heard of him until now, and as I see it: he seemed like a traumatized, sexually repressed preacher, who lashed out with nihilism and other things whenever the entire world shamed him, leading to his lifestyle of old school satanism and literally drinking a cat's blood one time. I have no idea what he did "Occult-ly" so I have no idea what to debunk there

Ok. Why don't we leave Mr. Crowley on the back burner for now.

#24
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
I'm sorry, but no, we were not supporting the planchette in any way shape or form. We were barely touching the very top of it. Think of touching something with just your fingernails.
And I'm telling you, that isn't the case, I've already given you my top three explanations for what might have happened, and if you don't want to believe it fine, but those are much more probable than a "supernatural" thing happening, which you have provided no evidence for. Either you are lying, you misremembered what happened, or you were doing enough to lift it, also, I can lift coins and cards with my finger nails... it isn't that hard, again, card tricks. Do these things really escape your comphrehension?



In other words, there must be something to my claim that makes the other explanations difficult. Like if someone told me they saw an oasis in the desert when they were dying of thirst. I don't need to consider the possibility of them lying (even though theoretically possible) in that the obvious explanation is mirage/optical illusion. There's nothing in the statement of seeing an oasis that would cause need for concern of lying.
That's incorrect, that's you assuming how I explain things. Whether you like it or not that is a possible explanation, so I didn't exclude it. You haven't actually pointed out any flaws in the other explanations, just assumed that they might have flaws because of this, that tells me that you are looking for any reason they might be wrong, without actually considering it logically. The difference between you and I is that you are lazy with your logical conclusions and I'm not, at least in this case. Not to mention, those two things aren't at all comparable - whenever you see an oasis in a dessert, but it isn't there, you know for an almost 100% fact that it was because of a mirage, and lying is a very low probability outcome, whereas in this case, there are a variety of reasonings that you could be doing this incorrectly, all with similar probabilities. Your reasoning is a non-sequitur and a false equivalence. 


You've stated that anything outside of the natural can be dismissed. I'm sure you're aware of the disclosure concerning UFO documentation. Valid reliable official sources have stated that these are not natural (as we know it) phenomenons, and appear to originate from highly intelligent forces or beings. It's no longer (officially speaking) science fiction. Would you dismiss the possibility that maybe the woman contacted a source originating from the disclosed phenomena
I have no idea what you're talking about, I have no knowledge of an UFO documentation, because no valid documentation exists. Give your sources or let the claim be unproven, again, I have never heard of whatever you're talking about. Now, people have sent in doctored videos claiming that the sources are offical, and the fraud has always been discovered false, but again, aliens would not be "unnatural", we have no current evidence of intelligent et life, but it wouldn't be unnatural if it did exist.


Im sorry but I have to ask, why would deceivers state or admit they are deceivers?

I'm not sure what doesn't make sense. Most religions acknowledging deities refer to light and darkness, good and evil, etc. That's what I'm getting at, and don't see any conflict with my statement.
You have literally no idea what I was talking about, I said that the woman called them decievers, therefore the only judgement shown on them was human judgement, which is ultimately subjective, nothing more than biased by our human evolution and our own moral systems. Therefore this alien lying doesn't mean anything in terms of good and evil, your claim makes no sense whatsoever, and has no logical bridge linking. "Aliens lied, therefore, objective morality?" Again, that is a non-sequitur.


It doesn't really matter because I'm not trying to make any particular truth claim about Ouja boards, but grabbing your bait anyway, think of you in a tug-of-war event at a family picnic. Imagine someone telling you the resistance you were feeling came from the person in front of you. Do you see how silly that sounds?
What? The force "pulling" your hand along was the other person, your example only further proves my point - exactly the resistance came from the other people, the only difference is that instead of pulling a rope, they were moving the planchette, and you thought it was moving by itself, perhaps even the other person thought that, but you don't even know if that other person wasn't moving it intentionally as a prank and was internally laughing their ass off, because you actually fell for it. Your logic is as about as brittle as crackers. 


Ok. Why don't we leave Mr. Crowley on the back burner for now
So whenever I actually pursue the questioning you immediately back off? That's not suspect at all
#25
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@RoderickSpode
The "occult" is not a spiritual practice. It just means esoteric, or hidden. Some of it is spiritual practice, some is the mysteries, some is even scientific information.
Topic's author
#26
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@Theweakeredge
And I'm telling you, that isn't the case, I've already given you my top three explanations for what might have happened, and if you don't want to believe it fine, but those are much more probable than a "supernatural" thing happening, which you have provided no evidence for. Either you are lying, you misremembered what happened, or you were doing enough to lift it, also, I can lift coins and cards with my finger nails... it isn't that hard, again, card tricks. Do these things really escape your comphrehension?
No. So let me ask you,  when you pick up a coin with your fingernails, explain to me how you accomplish this. I don't think you can defy gravity, so I doubt you can lift a coin with your fingernail with a soft gentle touch on the very top of the coin.



That's incorrect, that's you assuming how I explain things. Whether you like it or not that is a possible explanation, so I didn't exclude it. You haven't actually pointed out any flaws in the other explanations, just assumed that they might have flaws because of this, that tells me that you are looking for any reason they might be wrong, without actually considering it

logically. The difference between you and I is that you are lazy with your logical conclusions and I'm not, at least in this case. Not to mention, those two things aren't at all comparable - whenever you see an oasis in a dessert, but it isn't there, you know for an almost 100% fact that it was because of a mirage, and lying is a very low probability outcome, whereas in this case, there are a variety of reasonings that you could be doing this incorrectly, all with similar probabilities. Your reasoning is a non-sequitur and a false equivalence. 

Your explanations are possible in that anything theoretically is possible. One, or both of us may be experiments in a lab, and we're dreaming
all of this.

The difference between you and I is that you are lazy with your logical conclusions and I'm not, at least in this case
The only difference I see between you and I, in this case or any other, is your picture has an anime, or some sort of comic book character, and my picture resembles some sort of bar code.


I have no idea what you're talking about, I have no knowledge of an UFO documentation, because no valid documentation exists. Give your sources or let the claim be unproven, again, I have never heard of whatever you're talking about. Now, people have sent in doctored videos claiming that the sources are offical, and the fraud has always been discovered false, but again, aliens would not be "unnatural", we have no current evidence of intelligent et life, but it wouldn't be unnatural if it did exist.
There have been official videos released to the public.


And this an example of what is stated concerning their unnaturalness.


The footage appears to depict airborne, heat-emitting objects with no visible wings, fuselage or exhaust, performing aerodynamically in ways that no known

aircraft can achieve.
The DoD doesn’t use the terms “unidentified flying object” or “UFO” but does clearly state “the aerial phenomena observed in the videos remain characterized as ‘unidentified’.


aliens would not be "unnatural",

I'm assuming you're referring to aliens from other planets.  How would you even know if they came from other planets?

Even if they are, it's not really what they would be that is unnatural, but what they're able to do.


You have literally no idea what I was talking about,

You're absolutely correct.....literally.

It's probably why I posed a question. I usually do that when there's something I may not quite understand.


I said that the woman called them decievers, therefore the only judgement shown on them was human judgement, which is ultimately subjective, nothing more than biased by our human evolution and our own moral systems. Therefore this alien lying doesn't mean anything in terms of good and evil, your claim makes no sense whatsoever, and has no logical bridge linking. "Aliens lied, therefore, objective morality?" Again, that is a non-sequitur.

Are you saying that there is no evil? Something like terrorist acts against unknown people being evil is subjective?



What? The force "pulling" your hand along was the other person, your example only further proves my point - exactly the resistance came from the other people, the only difference is that instead of pulling a rope, they were moving the planchette, and you thought it was moving by itself, perhaps even the other person thought that, but you don't even know if that other person wasn't moving it intentionally as a prank and was internally laughing their ass off, because you actually fell for it. Your logic is as about as brittle as crackers. 

I realized afterwards that the way I put it may cause confusion. The other person (in front of you) is on your team. Not the opponent.


So whenever I actually pursue the questioning you immediately back off? That's not suspect at all

It sure doesn't look like you're pursuing the questioning. It looks like you were stating you didn't know much about him, therefore not much to talk about.


Was there a question you wanted me to answer?
Topic's author
#27
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@janesix
Thanks for the clarification.

I'm primarily focusing on the spiritual practice element.

#28
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,222
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
Same as my position on any religion or spirituality or belief in the supernatural. I don't believe in it personally, but if you do and you're not harming anyone with your beliefs, I'm pretty tolerant. 

I happen to think palm reading and Tarot cards and ouija boards are all pretty fun. 

#29
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,087
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@RoderickSpode
The object that moved around the board spelling out names and ages actually lifted off of the board at one moment, which is impossible since our fingers were barely touching the object.
It's called static electricity.  Research has shown that as a word or answer began to form, the eye movements increased, indicating that participants brains were calculating and predicting potential answers and sending their eyes to potential next letters, thus subconsciously guiding their hands to glide the planchettes to them. The pair on the planchette subconsciously take turns taking control as their brains feel more confident tin their choices.
Topic's author
#30
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@Castin
Same as my position on any religion or spirituality or belief in the supernatural. I don't believe in it personally, but if you do and you're not harming anyone with your beliefs, I'm pretty tolerant. 
Amen!


I happen to think palm reading and Tarot cards and ouija boards are all pretty fun. 
My brother had some (or all) of those. That's how I got into the Ouija board.

But truthfully IMO, the spiritual practice of the occult can get pretty dark. And that's why I would say we're more likely to see "experts" if I will, do research on Ouija boards as opposed to in-person Haitian voodoo rituals. I think there's a natural aversion to certain extremely dangerous aspects of spiritual practice. But some are very prone to them culturally.