My only brush with the paranormal

Either you have had horrid luck with meeting reasonable people in your life
Ah, the sweet smell of naivete. :D

One might consider the flip side of the coin: given that approximately 80% of the Western world is fully convinced that everyone who does not believe in their particular imaginary god will burn in everlasting torment, perhaps you've had good luck with meeting reasonable people.

or you don't even see things in black and white only, you see them in black or white only.
Mostly I see your posts in Dark Orchid. :D

Snagswolf is happy with his belief. The only possible thing he can gain by talking to us is disbelief (he has even conceded he knows he cannot convince us). He does not want disbelief. He cannot stop talking to us merely to protect his belief - that would be an admission that he knows its not true. So all he can do is make it our fault.

It's the only move he can make. Disbelief, or condeming us.
 
Ah, the sweet smell of naivete. :D

Uh, yeah, right.

Mostly I see your posts in Dark Orchid. :D

It's freakin' purple, I don't care what they call it!!!

(I haven't actually read the majority of your post yet, but since I'm trying to make sure this thread goes another two pages as quickly as possible, I figure responding one line at a time is good...)
 
He cannot stop talking to us merely to protect his belief - that would be an admission that he knows its not true. So all he can do is make it our fault.

It's the only move he can make. Disbelief, or condeming us.

Interesting hypothesis.

In my experience, when a woo feels the painful sting of rationality, they often run. I predict he'll back down to avoid our skeptical wrath, but will continue to believe whatever it is he believes.
 
Last edited:
...approximately 80% of the Western world is fully convinced that everyone who does not believe in their particular imaginary god will burn in everlasting torment, perhaps you've had good luck with meeting reasonable people.

Must have, 'cause I don't go around reacting as if 75% of them plan on not leaving it up to their God.

...(he has even conceded he knows he cannot convince us).

He hasn't even really tried, which doesn't seem much like a guy looking for an argument.

It's the only move he can make. Disbelief, or condeming us.

In my purple world, I see at least a third option. He can disagree with us on this one matter, while being completely (I hate this phrase, but it's the best I can think of) on the same page as us on every other matter.
 
Interesting hypothesis.

In my experience, when a woo feels the painful sting of rationality, they often run. I predict he'll back down to avoid our skeptical wrath, but will continue to believe whatever it is he believes.

Backing down and running aren't the same thing.



(Snagswolf had better turn out to be a stand-up guy, I rarely decide to back someone I know nothing about, and I hate being wrong about anything!)
 
Let's just assume you did see what you think you saw. Let's assume you are right.

What does that mean?

You don't dispute the fact that Khulman fails to heal thousands of people. You don't dispute the fact that the near-total majority of paranormal and unusual claims are bunk, either mistakes, self-deceptions, or outright fraud.

Nor do you dispute Darfur, the Tsunami, the Holocaust, or Pontine tumours. You don't dispute the fact that innocent children die every day in this country alone, from a lack of the most basic miraculous efforts.

Heck, children die on a regular basis, in the most horrific way, kidnapped by sick sexual predators, because God can't be bothered to make a phone call.

So against this ocean of misery and suffering, what do we have? One little girl who was granted a miracle, so she wouldn't stumble when she walked. Her life wasn't in danger. Other than running marathons, her life wasn't even circumscribed. There are children going blind in Africa right now, for lack of a pill that costs one dollar a year. Yet your cousin deserves a miracle, and they don't?

What kind of God would dole out his power so inefficiently? So utterly randomly? So unfairly?

We are left to conclude one of two things:


A) There is a God, and He is the most capricious being imaginable. He does not conform to any human understanding of good, fair, reliable, responsible, reasonable, manageable, or comprehensible, yet He controls all aspects of our lives for his own inscrutable reasons. We are but playthings to Him. He heals or ruins, saves or damns whomever he wants, with no more concern for them than your cousin has for her stuffed animals. Actually, with less, if your cousin is a normal child.

B) You are somehow mistaken in your observations, and the laws of physics and nature did not spontaneously change.


Ask yourself which of these are more likely. Then ask yourself which of these two you would prefer to be true.

That's the part that always gets me: not that you, or someone else, thought they saw a miracle; but that they never sat down and thought about exactly what that miracle would mean. If your experience is true, then we are helpless in the face of a world which cannot be understood, or even dealt with, but merely endured. If your experience is true, it does not create hope as you seem to think, but rather, destroys hope. It reduces all of us to victims. It makes a mockery of our efforts to make our lives better. It makes everything good in your life a gift, instead of the product of your own efforts.

Yet you tell this story as if it where supposed to inspire hope that things could get better; when in fact, if the story were true, it would merely show that all disease and illness are there because God wants them to be (given that he could make them go away in an instant). You think this is an example of somebody getting a special exemption; you do not understand it is an example of everyone else not getting a special exemption.

It takes a special kind of person to stand up in middle of a crowd of tortured, abused, crippled, dying children and shout, "Look at this! My cousin had a hang-nail cured by God!"


Nominated. Well-thought out response. Cheers.
 
First of all I apologize if I gave the impression that my post was entirely directed at you. It wasn't; You just happened to make the last of such posts that I quoted.

But as far as what I said relating to your post. You state that anyone making claims of something being supernatural should be 'ridiculed, and deservedly so'. My point was that many of us came to this board believing in one thing or another that was supernatural, though many of us, through civil discussion have been able to re-evaluate our beliefs.

If I was 'ridiculed, and deservedly so' when I started, I may not have stayed around long enough to have a chance of doing so.

Am I misunderstanding your point?

I never said that anyone making supernatural claims should be ridiculed. I said that anyone making supernatural claims while pretending to be skeptical should be ridiculed. People are entitled to their beliefs, although if they bring them up on a skeptics forum they can expect to have them challenged.

What deserves ridicule is what happens an awful lot - someone comes along saying that they are a skeptic and they wouldn't have believed this either, but this one thing they saw was absolutely true and could not be explained by science, therefore the paranormal is real. Which is exactly what happened here. As I quoted earlier
That said, I've had one occurrence in my life that can't be explained by any science, coincidence, physics, etc.
Saying "I can't explain" is fine, saying "Science can't explain" is just stupid.
 
Hey there. I'm new here so you all don't know me very well, but I'm pretty straight forward and tend to be very skeptical. If I don't see it for myself, I don't believe it. I'm here mainly to participate and learn more about debunking the 9/11 conspiracy kooks.

That said, I've had one occurrence in my life that can't be explained by any science, coincidence, physics, etc.

When I was 15, around 1973, I would go with my sister and her boyfriend's (future husband) family up to Youngstown, OH, (I'm from Pittsburgh) every Sunday to attend Kathryn Kuhlman's services. For those not familiar with her, Kathryn Kuhlman was an evangelist, in the vein of Billy Graham.

I wasn't really into it, but I would go with my sister and the family and take in the sights. Most of the time, Kathryn Kuhlman would just preach, and they'd all sing, and it would be fairly entertaining.

But ever few months or so, she would hold healing services. She was always admant that she wasn't a faith healer, but that it was God who was doing the healing. I would watch the goings on with skepticism, as she would call out healings that were happening, and people would come up to the stage and claim they were healed of various ailments, from bad backs to deafness to cancer. Without anything to personally verify these healings, I certainly took them with a grain of salt, even at my young age.

But then came a Sunday it wasn't some stranger being healed of some hidden malady. My sister's boyfriend has an uncle, and his uncle, at the time had a young daughter about 5 years old. This girl was born with two club feet, and was afflicted with this condition until that day. She left that healing service with two perfectly healthy and two perfectly shaped feet, and I saw them, up close, with my own eyes.

Of course, this is my anecdotal story, and if someone was telling it to me, I would be skeptical myself. But I know what I saw, and because of that, I personally know there are things we don't yet fully understand.


Snagswolf,

I can tell you exactly what happened to your relative's "clubfeet", even without looking at pictures. Your relative's "clubfeet" were not actually "clubfeet", but a similar condition called "metatarsus adductus".

http://www.drfoot.co.uk/babies_feet.htm

If you look at the pictures in the link, you can imagine that a very severe metatarus adductus will look very similar to a clubfoot. The difference being that 90% of metatarsi adductus will spontaneously resolve, whereas the clubfeet will not.

It can be very hard sometimes to tell the difference. Even experienced family practitioners will sometimes misdiagnose a metatarsus adductus as a clubfoot. It happens all the time.
 
I can tell you exactly what happened to your relative's "clubfeet", even without looking at pictures. Your relative's "clubfeet" were not actually "clubfeet", but a similar condition called "metatarsus adductus".

Bingo!
 
In my purple world, I see at least a third option. He can disagree with us on this one matter, while being completely (I hate this phrase, but it's the best I can think of) on the same page as us on every other matter.
Oh, you'd like to think that. He'd probably like to think that, too. We all would. ;)

But in my experience, it doesn't work that way. Once you section off part of your mind, it doesn't stay partitioned. Every time something breaks the wall, the wall can only be rebuilt on the other side. Like a cancer, it slowly grows. As your knowledge increases, the partition has to absorb more and more territory to deal with the new facts; and then it has to climb back up the roots of those facts to even old, established ideas.

Snag doesn't believe in this random event as a unique and isolated case. He believes in it because it has some kind of signficance to him. Now that Mouthfire has destroyed that signficance, Snag can either a) surrender it, or b) destroy Mouthfire's argument. He can't destroy Mouthfire's argument by facts or logic. So character assassination is the only recourse. And by extension, everyone and everything that agrees with Mouth eventually has to go. This is simply how the "taboo" mechanism in the human brain works.

Sure, you can dance a middle line for a while. The harder you try to remain ignorant, the better you are at simply never thinking about it, the longer you can be in the middle.

But eventually you have to make a choice, and if Snag wanted to make the choice of rationality, he would have never said, "I don't need an affidavit..." The hallmark of the woo - indeed, the sole distinction between the woo and the rationalist - is this: Both of them know that you can fool other people, but only one them knows you can fool yourself.

Snag doesn't want to learn that he can fool himself. Yet there is clearly tomfoolery afoot. Thus, he has to conclude that we are all trying to fool him. And why would anyone be nice to people who were trying to fool them?
 
Last edited:
'Ang on a minute... lovely explanation from Mouthfire there, wish I'd thought of it, but the problem here is that we haven't got any facts yet...

If I had any dollars, I'd probably bet the bottom one that Mouthfire's explanation is spot on; but we have no clue at present, simply that it's rather more likely, based on our present knowledge, than a faith healing.

We don't *know* that that's exactly what happened, and we don't have any *facts* at our disposal yet.

Just sayin'.
 
That said, I've had one occurrence in my life that can't be explained by any science, coincidence, physics, etc.

Saying "I can't explain" is fine, saying "Science can't explain" is just stupid.

I agree with Cuddles, although I think it might be a good idea to question the comment before ridiculing the commenter. Personal experience often makes objectivity tough, even when you know there is a logical explanation, and not everyone weighs their words carefully enough to make sure they type/say the absolutely right thing. Years ago I was somewhere with a magician who did close up magic. He put a coin in my hand, did something, and when I opened my hand, the coin was gone. Even though I knew it had been in my hand when I closed it. My thought then, and still now, is damn, I know that coin was in my hand! My brain is perfectly aware of the fact that he did not perform a miracle, merely a magic trick, but because it was me, it feels like it had to have really happened. (Actually, I have a much better example, but since it's my brush with the paranormal, there's no freakin' way I'm gonna talk about it here...)

Anyway, it seems possible that snagswolf might have not thought out how he was expressing himself well enough before he hit the submit button, which is obviously (especially now) stupid, but not stupid on the level that he's being accused of being.
 
Nucular already said what my next comment was gonna be, so I'll move on.

...Snag can either a) surrender it, or b) destroy Mouthfire's argument. He can't destroy Mouthfire's argument by facts or logic. So character assassination is the only recourse...


Snag doesn't want to learn that he can fool himself.

Snagswolf can at the very least challenge Mouthfire's argument. Or at least, potentially could, if there's medical proof that the child's condition was for sure club foot. I agree that it's likely to be the condition Mouthfire linked to, although spontaneous healing still seems unlikely.

Why is character assassination the only recourse? Why can't he simply say, "Hey, maybe that is what happened? Didn't seem like it to me at the time, but yeah, it makes sense."? Just because you don't expect him to doesn't mean he won't, but I sure wish he'd wander through, since I'm starting to feel like I'm defending a ghost... hehehe


Yet there is clearly tomfoolery afoot.

Was this intentional?:D
 
I think we're being a bit harsh here. Assuming that I am correct, I can see how Snagswolf could make the mistake of assuming there was a "healing", especially since it temporally coincided with the faith healing event.

I simply have the benefit of having dealt with clubfeet/metatarsi adducti in the past, otherwise perhaps I, too, could've made the same mistake.
 
I think we're being a bit harsh here. Assuming that I am correct, I can see how Snagswolf could make the mistake of assuming there was a "healing", especially since it temporally coincided with the faith healing event.
That's not the mistake we are complaining about.

Anybody could be surprised by a bizarre event. But it takes a special kind of person to witness such an event and not care what the answer really is.

Snagswolf didn't ask, how could this happen? He asserted Khulman healed her, and that was that.
 
Snagswolf can at the very least challenge Mouthfire's argument.
Sure, if he had some evidence.

But he's already conceded he doesn't have any; more to the point, that he doesn't require any.

He has his little piece of the miracle, and he's not going to let us take it away from him. Hence the silence. But you know he's muttering himself, "Those &^%$ skeptics." At least, if ever actually thinks about us at all. :D

Was this intentional?:D
:D
 
But you know he's muttering himself, "Those &^%$ skeptics."

I don't know that. I'm betting the other side, remember?

I do know that his reaction to this thread has become a driving force in my life.... gotta get out more I guess...
 

Back
Top Bottom