What do you believe?
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
I checked the last box, signifiying that I don't believe in any of it. You almost had me with the government conspirasy one, just because I just finished watching a show on the Scifi channel about government coverups of UFOs, but then you had to go and link it back with the idea that most UFOs are alien space craft and all that other gobbldy gook, hehe.
bluemommaphish
Registered Senior Member
Maybe you should add "Not willing to say either way" as an option on your poll. 
Hey I did my part.
Anyway the problem is probably that you're too well known around here, James, these people avoid reason and rationality like the plague. No doubt the prospect of conversing with you has scared them off. You'll have to go back to ambushing their threads that are already in progress.
Anyway the problem is probably that you're too well known around here, James, these people avoid reason and rationality like the plague. No doubt the prospect of conversing with you has scared them off. You'll have to go back to ambushing their threads that are already in progress.
Sorry JamesR, I "believe" your poll is a very biased attempt to divide
sciforum members into what you "believe" are either intelligent or
gullible segments and is beneath your intelligence. To my way of
thinking, "beliefs" indicate a closed mind, unable to accept new
concepts or ideas, more suitable in a religious forum than in
critical thinking applications. As is well known, many scientific
"beliefs" of the past have proven to have been in error. I would
position myself as "undecided" on the possibility that a very few
UFO's may have originated from a different time or a different
place than present day earth. I "believe" most scientists do not
have the balls to seriously look into the subject deeply because
of fear of ridicule by their peers. I am sure you are aware of some
countries that have government agencies presently investigating
some reports to try to arrive at an explaination for the events
that happened. The British have made repeated requests for the
US Air Force's recordings and photos of the events at Rendlesham
Forrest. Was it a top secret US craft or something else? How would
I know? I don't have preconceived beliefs.
sciforum members into what you "believe" are either intelligent or
gullible segments and is beneath your intelligence. To my way of
thinking, "beliefs" indicate a closed mind, unable to accept new
concepts or ideas, more suitable in a religious forum than in
critical thinking applications. As is well known, many scientific
"beliefs" of the past have proven to have been in error. I would
position myself as "undecided" on the possibility that a very few
UFO's may have originated from a different time or a different
place than present day earth. I "believe" most scientists do not
have the balls to seriously look into the subject deeply because
of fear of ridicule by their peers. I am sure you are aware of some
countries that have government agencies presently investigating
some reports to try to arrive at an explaination for the events
that happened. The British have made repeated requests for the
US Air Force's recordings and photos of the events at Rendlesham
Forrest. Was it a top secret US craft or something else? How would
I know? I don't have preconceived beliefs.
Let me enlighten you to my interpretation of "beliefs". Agreed, that it is a word an you are welcome to interpret it however you wish, but if your interpretation is correct, then about 80% of the world populace are closed minded and unable to accept new concepts or ideas. Since about 80% or the world has some type of belief or faith structure, and my personal estimate of idiots is about 60% of the world, then there's billions of people out there who you're miss-labeling.
Beliefs to me are merely a system of ideas that you put faith into without having necessary proof, but rather a rational, educated guess. I assume that at least some people, like me, have beliefs that change, evolve, and expand when more information is available. Therefore, my (and some others' because I don't generalize) beliefs are exactly contradictory of yours. To have beliefs you must NOT have a closed mind, and must be able to accept new concepts and ideas. These beliefs, are completely applicable in critical thinking applications because they are changing, evolving systems that require you to think. You should think more on this, but that's just my belief.
This is the entire crux of the situation, yes. The issue I think as well has to do with how some people characterize all ideas as either true of false, leaving no middle ground. Their seems to be no provisions in some peoples ways of thinking for the concepts of "Possible, but not proven yet" or the concept of "improbable, but not yet disproven". An open case is one which currently has no conclusion. I can understand that in the end, ALL ideas are either true or false, but taking the position that all unproven ideas are false until proven true is damaging to the persuit of knowledge. Would you say to a criminal "Guilty untill proven innocent" ? Of course not! But then, this way of thinking is highly implicative on world views. To say that something is "false" until proven "true" beyond a shadow of a doubt is to say that one's own perception of what is true and false will not even be considered inaccurate, much less falsible until the available evidence is so overwhelming it cannot be denied. Plato would be appauled at the lack of humility.
This has far more to do with a philosophical view of true and false than it has to do with what is good or bad science. Unfortunetly, the philosophy of science is a widely untaught subject and many people have many differnt takes on the subject. Who is to say which is correct? Who is to say which in the end is the TRUE definition of science? No one unfortunetly has a final authority on the question. Science is a human venture, and as such is always marred with human fallacies: ego, emotionalism, self-deception, and even possibly mass delusion amoung others.
posted by Xevious:
The issue I think as well has to do with how some people characterize all ideas as either true of false, leaving no middle ground. Their seems to be no provisions in some peoples ways of thinking for the concepts of "Possible, but not proven yet" or the concept of "improbable, but not yet disproven". An open case is one which currently has no conclusion.
______________________________________________________
Your post articulated what I was attempting to convey in a much
clearer way. The poll is asking for either a "true" or "false" answer
from members based on beliefs. In my humble observations, I think
people with firm "beliefs" tend to easily dismiss ideas, concepts,
even science, that counter those beliefs.
The issue I think as well has to do with how some people characterize all ideas as either true of false, leaving no middle ground. Their seems to be no provisions in some peoples ways of thinking for the concepts of "Possible, but not proven yet" or the concept of "improbable, but not yet disproven". An open case is one which currently has no conclusion.
______________________________________________________
Your post articulated what I was attempting to convey in a much
clearer way. The poll is asking for either a "true" or "false" answer
from members based on beliefs. In my humble observations, I think
people with firm "beliefs" tend to easily dismiss ideas, concepts,
even science, that counter those beliefs.
2inquisitive and Xevious,
I find it interesting that you both seem to think I have an ulterior motive in posting this poll. (Did you check the "government conspiracy" option on the poll, too?)
I do not intend to make any judgments as to the intelligence of sciforum members based on which of these things they believe. This is just a straightforward survey of the people who post here.
I do not think that the poll paints things as black or white, either. I was careful to construct the options in terms of what is probable or possible, rather than as absolutes, since I realise that few people are 100% certain about these things. I think all the statements require you to measure up your judgment of the probability of something being true and to commit one way or the other. I didn't think that people who post here would find that so difficult to do, especially given the number of threads here which assume from the word go that one or more of the things in the poll are real.
I will have more to say about what I conclude from the results once we have a few more votes.
In the meantime, let's turn to specifics, since I am interested in your thoughts on these.
<b>2inquisitive</b>
<i>To my way of thinking, "beliefs" indicate a closed mind, unable to accept new concepts or ideas, more suitable in a religious forum than in critical thinking applications.</i>
I believe Newton's laws of motion are correct. Does that mean I have a closed mind? I don't think so. I am open to any better explanation which might come along. People have beliefs about all kinds of things. It is impossible to sit on the fence about everything. If you did that, you could never make any decision to act.
<i>I would position myself as "undecided" on the possibility that a very few UFO's may have originated from a different time or a different place than present day earth.</i>
The poll is really asking whether you think, on a balance of probabilities, that at least some UFOs are alien spacecraft. It seems like a straightforward question to me. Are you saying you don't know what you think about that? Then maybe now is the time to examine your own thoughts on the matter in a little more depth.
<i>The British have made repeated requests for the US Air Force's recordings and photos of the events at Rendlesham Forrest. Was it a top secret US craft or something else? How would I know? I don't have preconceived beliefs.</i>
My question was much more general than this, which refers to a specific instance. I don't even know of the event you're talking about here, so I have no belief about it. However, I had no problem answering the question in the poll.
<b>Xevious</b>
<i>The issue I think as well has to do with how some people characterize all ideas as either true of false, leaving no middle ground. Their seems to be no provisions in some peoples ways of thinking for the concepts of "Possible, but not proven yet" or the concept of "improbable, but not yet disproven". An open case is one which currently has no conclusion.</i>
This is exactly why the poll contains the words "probably" and "possible" so many times.
<i>This has far more to do with a philosophical view of true and false than it has to do with what is good or bad science. Unfortunetly, the philosophy of science is a widely untaught subject and many people have many differnt takes on the subject. Who is to say which is correct? Who is to say which in the end is the TRUE definition of science? No one unfortunetly has a final authority on the question. Science is a human venture, and as such is always marred with human fallacies: ego, emotionalism, self-deception, and even possibly mass delusion amoung others.</i>
You know, I didn't mention science anywhere in the poll or in my initial post. Why do you think it is relevant here? I am really interested in your response.
I find it interesting that you both seem to think I have an ulterior motive in posting this poll. (Did you check the "government conspiracy" option on the poll, too?)
I do not intend to make any judgments as to the intelligence of sciforum members based on which of these things they believe. This is just a straightforward survey of the people who post here.
I do not think that the poll paints things as black or white, either. I was careful to construct the options in terms of what is probable or possible, rather than as absolutes, since I realise that few people are 100% certain about these things. I think all the statements require you to measure up your judgment of the probability of something being true and to commit one way or the other. I didn't think that people who post here would find that so difficult to do, especially given the number of threads here which assume from the word go that one or more of the things in the poll are real.
I will have more to say about what I conclude from the results once we have a few more votes.
In the meantime, let's turn to specifics, since I am interested in your thoughts on these.
<b>2inquisitive</b>
<i>To my way of thinking, "beliefs" indicate a closed mind, unable to accept new concepts or ideas, more suitable in a religious forum than in critical thinking applications.</i>
I believe Newton's laws of motion are correct. Does that mean I have a closed mind? I don't think so. I am open to any better explanation which might come along. People have beliefs about all kinds of things. It is impossible to sit on the fence about everything. If you did that, you could never make any decision to act.
<i>I would position myself as "undecided" on the possibility that a very few UFO's may have originated from a different time or a different place than present day earth.</i>
The poll is really asking whether you think, on a balance of probabilities, that at least some UFOs are alien spacecraft. It seems like a straightforward question to me. Are you saying you don't know what you think about that? Then maybe now is the time to examine your own thoughts on the matter in a little more depth.
<i>The British have made repeated requests for the US Air Force's recordings and photos of the events at Rendlesham Forrest. Was it a top secret US craft or something else? How would I know? I don't have preconceived beliefs.</i>
My question was much more general than this, which refers to a specific instance. I don't even know of the event you're talking about here, so I have no belief about it. However, I had no problem answering the question in the poll.
<b>Xevious</b>
<i>The issue I think as well has to do with how some people characterize all ideas as either true of false, leaving no middle ground. Their seems to be no provisions in some peoples ways of thinking for the concepts of "Possible, but not proven yet" or the concept of "improbable, but not yet disproven". An open case is one which currently has no conclusion.</i>
This is exactly why the poll contains the words "probably" and "possible" so many times.
<i>This has far more to do with a philosophical view of true and false than it has to do with what is good or bad science. Unfortunetly, the philosophy of science is a widely untaught subject and many people have many differnt takes on the subject. Who is to say which is correct? Who is to say which in the end is the TRUE definition of science? No one unfortunetly has a final authority on the question. Science is a human venture, and as such is always marred with human fallacies: ego, emotionalism, self-deception, and even possibly mass delusion amoung others.</i>
You know, I didn't mention science anywhere in the poll or in my initial post. Why do you think it is relevant here? I am really interested in your response.
This is a science website, James. This particular forum is called "pseudoscience" and sometimes I am under the impression that those who hold the kinds of beliefs mentioned in the poll are considered nutcases, or have their own alterior motives. Either way, the responses posted to people who believe that way are often percieved as hostile or insensetive.
Perhaps I'm making sweeping generalizations, but an alterior motive is assigned based on the past treatment of those at sciforums who contemplate and consider paranormal phenomenon to be a valid line of thinking. The statements made by Mystic is a good example.
Since I am referring to things said in other threads and just the plain feelings many seem to have, I will leave it at this.
Perhaps I'm making sweeping generalizations, but an alterior motive is assigned based on the past treatment of those at sciforums who contemplate and consider paranormal phenomenon to be a valid line of thinking. The statements made by Mystic is a good example.
Since I am referring to things said in other threads and just the plain feelings many seem to have, I will leave it at this.
I believe..... most people know where I stand by now
I think people want to believe in many of the paranormal topics that come up here and in other places... I also think it's human nature to seek some form of status within our societies and groups and having paranormal abilities, seeing UFOs, being abducted by aliens, or having the ear of aprofit prophet gives a bit of status. It sets one apart. I won't disagree that taking an opposite stand probably does the same thing.
There's an interesting study that compares alien abduction claims to sado-masochism in that it fullfils a need to escape one's self (Neuman & Baumeister). The study points out many of the similarities that exist between S&M practitioners and so-called "abductees," such as being bound to a table, pain, humiliation, anal-probing, forced sexual contact, etc.
So having said that, I think some people believe in things that are bigger than themselves in order to escape the mundane routines of their lives or because they lack self-satisfaction within their lives. The paranormal is "bigger" than the norm.
Certainly these aren't the only driving forces for belief in the paranormal, society and culture play large parts... we live in an age where Science Fiction movies, the X-Files, and Urban Legends abound. Not to mention traditional belief structures such as religion and cultural rituals.
Newman, L.S., & Baumeister, R.F. (1996). Toward and Explanation of the UFO Abduction Phenomenon: Hypnotic Elaboration, Extraterrestrial Sadomasochism, and Spurious Memories. Psychological Inquiry, 7, pp.99-126.
I think people want to believe in many of the paranormal topics that come up here and in other places... I also think it's human nature to seek some form of status within our societies and groups and having paranormal abilities, seeing UFOs, being abducted by aliens, or having the ear of a
There's an interesting study that compares alien abduction claims to sado-masochism in that it fullfils a need to escape one's self (Neuman & Baumeister). The study points out many of the similarities that exist between S&M practitioners and so-called "abductees," such as being bound to a table, pain, humiliation, anal-probing, forced sexual contact, etc.
So having said that, I think some people believe in things that are bigger than themselves in order to escape the mundane routines of their lives or because they lack self-satisfaction within their lives. The paranormal is "bigger" than the norm.
Certainly these aren't the only driving forces for belief in the paranormal, society and culture play large parts... we live in an age where Science Fiction movies, the X-Files, and Urban Legends abound. Not to mention traditional belief structures such as religion and cultural rituals.
Newman, L.S., & Baumeister, R.F. (1996). Toward and Explanation of the UFO Abduction Phenomenon: Hypnotic Elaboration, Extraterrestrial Sadomasochism, and Spurious Memories. Psychological Inquiry, 7, pp.99-126.
Of course, I can give positive answer to questions about concrete
facts and supported scientific theories, such as your example of
Newton's laws of motion. This poll isn't about facts or accepted
theories, it is about controversial beliefs without general scientific
backing.
I believe: Some, if not most, UFOs are alien spacecraft.
I do not see "probable" or "possible" in this statement that we
are asked to mark "I believe" or, at the bottom of the poll, "I
don't believe in any of these things." I have read enough
information on the web to cause me to not discount the "possibility"
of alien spacecraft, but no hard evidence to cause me to state
"I believe some, if not most, UFOs are alien spacecraft." I believe
that lumping them in with ghosts, astrology, etc. in a poll is demeaning to scientist trying to do serious research. What
serious research, you say? RIAP in Ukraine is only one example.
The site is in concise English and staffed by scientists. A link:
http://www.geocities.com/riap777/learn.html
As you, James R, have never heard of the Rendlesham Forest incedent, I will give a link to the UK Ministry of Defence. You
will have to click on New Search at the bottom of the page, then
use Rendlesham as the Key Word on the next page if interested.
http://www.foi.mod.uk/results.asp
I used to have a link to the British Parliament listing their many
requests for the photos, tape recordings, radar evidence, etc.
that the US Air Force supposedly had, but I deleted the link
months ago.
facts and supported scientific theories, such as your example of
Newton's laws of motion. This poll isn't about facts or accepted
theories, it is about controversial beliefs without general scientific
backing.
I believe: Some, if not most, UFOs are alien spacecraft.
I do not see "probable" or "possible" in this statement that we
are asked to mark "I believe" or, at the bottom of the poll, "I
don't believe in any of these things." I have read enough
information on the web to cause me to not discount the "possibility"
of alien spacecraft, but no hard evidence to cause me to state
"I believe some, if not most, UFOs are alien spacecraft." I believe
that lumping them in with ghosts, astrology, etc. in a poll is demeaning to scientist trying to do serious research. What
serious research, you say? RIAP in Ukraine is only one example.
The site is in concise English and staffed by scientists. A link:
http://www.geocities.com/riap777/learn.html
As you, James R, have never heard of the Rendlesham Forest incedent, I will give a link to the UK Ministry of Defence. You
will have to click on New Search at the bottom of the page, then
use Rendlesham as the Key Word on the next page if interested.
http://www.foi.mod.uk/results.asp
I used to have a link to the British Parliament listing their many
requests for the photos, tape recordings, radar evidence, etc.
that the US Air Force supposedly had, but I deleted the link
months ago.
2inquisitive:
<i>I believe: Some, if not most, UFOs are alien spacecraft</i>
Fine.
<i>I do not see "probable" or "possible" in this statement that we
are asked to mark "I believe" or, at the bottom of the poll, "I
don't believe in any of these things."</i>
In the UFO statement, there <b>is</b>, however, the word "some". Clearly, nobody in their right mind would believe that <b>all</b> UFOs are alien spacecraft.
<i>I believe that lumping them in with ghosts, astrology, etc. in a poll is demeaning to scientist trying to do serious research.</i>
So you don't believe in any of the other things? I am truly interested in why you don't believe in, say, angels, yet you do believe that some UFOs are alien spacecraft. Can you explain?
<i>I believe: Some, if not most, UFOs are alien spacecraft</i>
Fine.
<i>I do not see "probable" or "possible" in this statement that we
are asked to mark "I believe" or, at the bottom of the poll, "I
don't believe in any of these things."</i>
In the UFO statement, there <b>is</b>, however, the word "some". Clearly, nobody in their right mind would believe that <b>all</b> UFOs are alien spacecraft.
<i>I believe that lumping them in with ghosts, astrology, etc. in a poll is demeaning to scientist trying to do serious research.</i>
So you don't believe in any of the other things? I am truly interested in why you don't believe in, say, angels, yet you do believe that some UFOs are alien spacecraft. Can you explain?
In fact, let me ask the last question to all the people who have ticked some, but not all of the 9 things on the list:
<b>Why do you believe in some of the things on the list but not others?</b>
In particular, what causes you to NOT believe in the things you didn't tick on the list?
<b>Why do you believe in some of the things on the list but not others?</b>
In particular, what causes you to NOT believe in the things you didn't tick on the list?
Well James, since you're offering the "possible but not proven" angle (which is where I stand for the most part) I'll take a shot at it. May I say for the record that when UFO photos have come up in past pseudoscience threads, some of the skeptics that have been here for some time might remember that I have in every case that so far has come up (And I noticed), sided with them.
Some UFO's MIGHT be alien spacecraft. The abduction experience, even if dismissed by some as delusion caused by whatever causes, is indicative of a very real phenomenon. One need not be reminded that the skeptics argument for the real cause of alien abduction memories has not been proven to be the real cause either. As a person with severe ADD and post-tramatic stress disorder I must admit that I have spent some time with psychiatrists and psychotherapists. Those I have had candid discussions with and were knowledgeable on the subject tell me they are scared stiff of what they deal with. I don't think honestly that just dreams can produce the amount of emotional trama the abduction experience is known to produce. Remember, this is a psycological phenomenon be it caused by REAL events, or lucid dreaming. It is up to psychiatrists and psychotherapists to give us a concensus as to what this phenomenon represents.
Yet, the psycological community has been very quiet on the issue. Why? If it was all lucid dreaming it would be all over psycological journals and all over the media and what not... but it isn't. Theirfore the skeptics explanation does not entirely fit the phenomenon they claim it represents. Now, their are hundreds of points in the UFO argument both for and against, and this is only one but it should at least trace enough of my way of thinking to explain to you why I come to the conclusion I do.
Ghosts are probably a very real phenomenon. Their is in my opinion, too many sightings and historical arguments to it's credit. This is not to say that some kind of natural phenomenon is not to blame, but only that the idea that Ghosts are a max hoax or dilusion is again, an unwarrented assumption. What they are is a question I cannot answer. Like any other paranormal phenomenon, it is true it is abound with hoaxes, but then again science has also had to deal with hoaxes.
Astrology is an issue I will leave as unbelieveable. Unlike Ghosts or UFO's, which claim their is some kind of phenomenon which might at least in principal be proven or disproven, Astrology is an issue of predicting future events, and it is true too many "psychics" and palmreaders are purely in for their own gain. Astrology is far more satturated with money than either UFO's or Ghosts. Unlike either of the above phenomenon, which you can find the paranormal investigators books at local libraries or even online, (and judge the research as valid or false) for the most part the only way to get an Astrology forecast is to pay someone for it. On the other hand, if you met an Astrologer who said he would read anyone for free, and this additude was far more commom amoung Astrologers, then their motives might be far less questioned.
Psychic powers are another issue which is strange but quite possible. It is known that Police departments have used psychic investigators before, and their clues have sometimes lead to convictions. However, not everyone claiming to be a psychic is one and like in the Astrology example, some are purely seeking material gain. Motives for psychic investigators can generally be summed up in if and how they charge for their services. If one asks only reimbursement for traveling expenses (if from far away) that is not unreasonable, considering they will be spending all their time with the investigators and have little time for sightseeing. The reliability of the psychic can also be summed up by wether or not in at least in the police example, they come up with valueble information which is helpful to the police department. If on the other hand they charge a large fee and return little if nothing in return, then the psychic is sure enough a floop.
The existance of Angels is something many faiths have held since time began. Like ghosts, their are those who see enough to believe, and those who don't. As a religious man I can accept the existance of Angels as part of my faith, but like God it is not something I can ever hope to find verified by science. This is differnt from my beliefs on UFO's and other paranormal phenomenon, in which I see enough evidence to leave the possibility of something existing open, if not a very real possibility.
Prediction of the future is not something I tend to follow and believe in. Prophecies turn out to be true or false, with something of a 50 - 50 failure rate dependant upon what day of the week it is and how you interprit them. They are frankly too iffy to me to put any real value in.
Similar to the psychic phenomenon, communicating with the dead is yet another issue of wether or not one can determine if alterior motives of profit exist. The first reference of the phenomenon that I can find is in the Old Testament of the Bible - several thousand years ago. Again, it is a very old idea about with both credible phenomenon that make you wonder, and hoaxes.
A rule of thumb on Governments: It is a function of any Government to keep order and stability inside of a society. In addition, Governments have their own little secrets they try to keep from public knowledge. I need not cite tons of examples here, I feel anyone with a good knowledge of history would understand what I am speaking of, and this statement is not just limited to the paranormal. Governments do not always tell you where it's covert ops. units are... do they? Just where is a submarine on a given day? Why didn't most anyone know about the atomic bomb until we dropped it on Hiroshima? Sure these are all military examples, but they illustrate the point nicely.
Some UFO's MIGHT be alien spacecraft. The abduction experience, even if dismissed by some as delusion caused by whatever causes, is indicative of a very real phenomenon. One need not be reminded that the skeptics argument for the real cause of alien abduction memories has not been proven to be the real cause either. As a person with severe ADD and post-tramatic stress disorder I must admit that I have spent some time with psychiatrists and psychotherapists. Those I have had candid discussions with and were knowledgeable on the subject tell me they are scared stiff of what they deal with. I don't think honestly that just dreams can produce the amount of emotional trama the abduction experience is known to produce. Remember, this is a psycological phenomenon be it caused by REAL events, or lucid dreaming. It is up to psychiatrists and psychotherapists to give us a concensus as to what this phenomenon represents.
Yet, the psycological community has been very quiet on the issue. Why? If it was all lucid dreaming it would be all over psycological journals and all over the media and what not... but it isn't. Theirfore the skeptics explanation does not entirely fit the phenomenon they claim it represents. Now, their are hundreds of points in the UFO argument both for and against, and this is only one but it should at least trace enough of my way of thinking to explain to you why I come to the conclusion I do.
Ghosts are probably a very real phenomenon. Their is in my opinion, too many sightings and historical arguments to it's credit. This is not to say that some kind of natural phenomenon is not to blame, but only that the idea that Ghosts are a max hoax or dilusion is again, an unwarrented assumption. What they are is a question I cannot answer. Like any other paranormal phenomenon, it is true it is abound with hoaxes, but then again science has also had to deal with hoaxes.
Astrology is an issue I will leave as unbelieveable. Unlike Ghosts or UFO's, which claim their is some kind of phenomenon which might at least in principal be proven or disproven, Astrology is an issue of predicting future events, and it is true too many "psychics" and palmreaders are purely in for their own gain. Astrology is far more satturated with money than either UFO's or Ghosts. Unlike either of the above phenomenon, which you can find the paranormal investigators books at local libraries or even online, (and judge the research as valid or false) for the most part the only way to get an Astrology forecast is to pay someone for it. On the other hand, if you met an Astrologer who said he would read anyone for free, and this additude was far more commom amoung Astrologers, then their motives might be far less questioned.
Psychic powers are another issue which is strange but quite possible. It is known that Police departments have used psychic investigators before, and their clues have sometimes lead to convictions. However, not everyone claiming to be a psychic is one and like in the Astrology example, some are purely seeking material gain. Motives for psychic investigators can generally be summed up in if and how they charge for their services. If one asks only reimbursement for traveling expenses (if from far away) that is not unreasonable, considering they will be spending all their time with the investigators and have little time for sightseeing. The reliability of the psychic can also be summed up by wether or not in at least in the police example, they come up with valueble information which is helpful to the police department. If on the other hand they charge a large fee and return little if nothing in return, then the psychic is sure enough a floop.
The existance of Angels is something many faiths have held since time began. Like ghosts, their are those who see enough to believe, and those who don't. As a religious man I can accept the existance of Angels as part of my faith, but like God it is not something I can ever hope to find verified by science. This is differnt from my beliefs on UFO's and other paranormal phenomenon, in which I see enough evidence to leave the possibility of something existing open, if not a very real possibility.
Prediction of the future is not something I tend to follow and believe in. Prophecies turn out to be true or false, with something of a 50 - 50 failure rate dependant upon what day of the week it is and how you interprit them. They are frankly too iffy to me to put any real value in.
Similar to the psychic phenomenon, communicating with the dead is yet another issue of wether or not one can determine if alterior motives of profit exist. The first reference of the phenomenon that I can find is in the Old Testament of the Bible - several thousand years ago. Again, it is a very old idea about with both credible phenomenon that make you wonder, and hoaxes.
A rule of thumb on Governments: It is a function of any Government to keep order and stability inside of a society. In addition, Governments have their own little secrets they try to keep from public knowledge. I need not cite tons of examples here, I feel anyone with a good knowledge of history would understand what I am speaking of, and this statement is not just limited to the paranormal. Governments do not always tell you where it's covert ops. units are... do they? Just where is a submarine on a given day? Why didn't most anyone know about the atomic bomb until we dropped it on Hiroshima? Sure these are all military examples, but they illustrate the point nicely.
James R
Just this guy, you know?
2853 posts
2inquisitive:
I believe: Some, if not most, UFOs are alien spacecraft
Fine.
________________________________________________
That was YOUR statement copied from the poll. My reply was taken
out of context. My reply was below:
I believe: Some, if not most, UFOs are alien spacecraft.
I do not see "probable" or "possible" in this statement that we
are asked to mark "I believe" or, at the bottom of the poll, "I
don't believe in any of these things." I have read enough
information on the web to cause me to not discount the "possibility"
of alien spacecraft, but no hard evidence to cause me to state
"I believe some, if not most, UFOs are alien spacecraft."
____________________________________________________
posted by James R:
So you don't believe in any of the other things? I am truly interested in why you don't believe in, say, angels, yet you do believe that some UFOs are alien spacecraft. Can you explain?
__________________
Why would you think that because I refuse to discount the POSSIBILITY of alien spacecraft, I would believe in angels? Do
you think that people who believe in any one of the items are
likely to believe in others? I would be interested in why you
believe that.
Just this guy, you know?
2853 posts
2inquisitive:
I believe: Some, if not most, UFOs are alien spacecraft
Fine.
________________________________________________
That was YOUR statement copied from the poll. My reply was taken
out of context. My reply was below:
I believe: Some, if not most, UFOs are alien spacecraft.
I do not see "probable" or "possible" in this statement that we
are asked to mark "I believe" or, at the bottom of the poll, "I
don't believe in any of these things." I have read enough
information on the web to cause me to not discount the "possibility"
of alien spacecraft, but no hard evidence to cause me to state
"I believe some, if not most, UFOs are alien spacecraft."
____________________________________________________
posted by James R:
So you don't believe in any of the other things? I am truly interested in why you don't believe in, say, angels, yet you do believe that some UFOs are alien spacecraft. Can you explain?
__________________
Why would you think that because I refuse to discount the POSSIBILITY of alien spacecraft, I would believe in angels? Do
you think that people who believe in any one of the items are
likely to believe in others? I would be interested in why you
believe that.
2inquisitive:
<i>Why would you think that because I refuse to discount the POSSIBILITY of alien spacecraft, I would believe in angels?</i>
Why do you discount the possibility that angels exist?
<i>Do you think that people who believe in any one of the items are likely to believe in others?</i>
That remains to be seen, doesn't it? More comments when we have more votes.
<i>Why would you think that because I refuse to discount the POSSIBILITY of alien spacecraft, I would believe in angels?</i>
Why do you discount the possibility that angels exist?
<i>Do you think that people who believe in any one of the items are likely to believe in others?</i>
That remains to be seen, doesn't it? More comments when we have more votes.
tablestone
Registered Member
I think this is a well worded and well concieved poll. Part of the problem may be that it's posted in a forum where everyone has all ready chosen a side. Ignoring all that semantics crap, it forces the poll taker to hop down off the fence. There is no 50%. You can be 49%, or 51%, but not "undecided." It would be interesting to post this poll in some of the other groups. You might want to forewarn the moderator of each of the groups, as thier first reaction might be to kick it right back to this one. Oh, In case your curious, I only checked the last box.