Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

Status
Not open for further replies.
You have to ask yourself though, what would Bigfootery be like without all the wacko characters? What if all of them were intelligent, articulate and fully humble?

It is a charming myth because it is all so ridiculous!
 
The belief that the moon isn't purple can be religious if someone really wants it to be. That person would need to have doubts about the moon's color in the first place though.
 
Last edited:
William Parcher said:
It is a charming myth because it is all so ridiculous!
Click to expand...
Well that's how I enjoy it with my students and my kids. We go someplace that looks squatchy, find some sticks, make a footprint, etc. We talk about bigfoot, have some laughs, and then get back to why we were there in the first place. You know, reality.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
The belief that the moon isn't purple can be religious if someone really wants it to be. . . .
Click to expand...
If by "religious" you mean "adhered to despite empirical evidence to the contrary" then sure. You can substitute whatever phrase you like:

"The belief __________ can be religious if someone really wants it to be."

Now find some examples of a people not believing in bigfoot as a matter of faith. Right now this idea is just something that you want to be.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
The belief that the moon isn't purple can be religious if someone really wants it to be.
Click to expand...

I grant that there might be a religious explanation for why the moon is not purple, but believing the moon is not purple is in no way based in faith, well, assuming the person has normal vision.
 
Human beings are genetically programmed to create religious beliefs. I suspect it must have been an evolutionary advantage.

Not everything is going to be looked at religiously though. Things like Jesus, aliens, bigfoot and dooms-day are more likely to become faith-based than something like the color of the moon in this day and age.
 
Last edited:
OntarioSquatch said:
Just not believing/fence-sitting can't be religious. The active belief in something though, can be. The psychology displayed by both bigfoot-devoted skeptics and bigfoot-devoted proponents is basically the same.
Click to expand...

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Please get back to us when you do.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
Human beings are genetically programmed to create religious beliefs. I suspect it must have been an evolutionary advantage.

Not everything is going to be looked at religiously though. Things like Jesus, aliens, bigfoot and dooms-day are more likely to become faith-based than something like the color of the moon in this day and age.
Click to expand...

Religion is usually defined as a belief in a supernatural being (believing that Oprah will give me a million dollars may be an unlikely anticipation, but is not typically defined as religion). If you are trying to define religion as a belief in anything that has no facts or evidence in its favor (sometimes used for disparaging purposes) then okay- by that definition belief in Bigfoot might border on a religion.

But even with this expanded definition, belief in ideas that are supported by facts (the moon is a rocky globe that circles the Earth) is not a religion. Even believing that the facts indicate the non-existence of something is not a religion. Believing that there is no Bigfoot is not a religion. These non-religious beliefs may be argued in some cases, and may acquire more facts in their favor in the future, or more facts against them. They may eventually be disproven. But they are never a religion.
 
Last edited:
OntarioSquatch said:
Human beings are genetically programmed to create religious beliefs. I suspect it must have been an evolutionary advantage.

Not everything is going to be looked at religiously though. Things like Jesus, aliens, bigfoot and dooms-day are more likely to become faith-based than something like the color of the moon in this day and age.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but this sounds like incoherent babbling. My 5 year old niece could construct a clearer train of thought on the point.
 
The belief in anything can be a religion, but the person must first meet a set of psychological pre-requisites for it. The requirements haven't really been defined yet in psychology, but they are there. I'm starting to think that I should have applied for psychology instead of architecture.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
The belief in anything can be a religion, but the person must first meet a set of psychological pre-requisites for it. The requirements haven't really been defined yet in psychology, but they are there. I'm starting to think that I should have applied for psychology instead of architecture.
Click to expand...
Oh there's something being pulled out of something that's for sure LOL!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom