one recent afternoon, me and a buddy were taking a trek around a nearby neighborhood and made our way past a delapidated house that had all the familiar symptoms of being haunted.
he suggested we check it out so, of course, we did.
it looked like it had been abandoned probably 30-40 years earlier but the previous owners had left behind a small coffee table.
NC: Demunz chase chickens with broomsticks? Why would they do that?
Long story, m'lady, but imagine you're thousands of years old, invisible, can fly at will, and vastly more powerful & intelligent than any human. Do you really think you'd be able to resist chasing chickens with a broom?
And we musn't forget the bigger picture. See, there was a naked woman, a talking snake, and a fruit tree....
can any of you guess the bottle and the cause of my embarrassment?.
UUN: i have never CREAMED myself......
Oops, my apologies, I wrongly assumed you were a dude.
one recent afternoon, me and a buddy were taking a trek around a nearby neighborhood and made our way past a delapidated house that had all the familiar symptoms of being haunted.
he suggested we check it out so, of course, we did.
it looked like it had been abandoned probably 30-40 years earlier but the previous owners had left behind a small coffee table.
Joey: Would you agree with me that its naive to generalise? to jump to conclusions?
Absolutely. And what Sagan suggested, being a scientist, was to avoid jumping to conclusions (by mislabeling the unexplained) until you have evidence. To label an unexplained perception as demons is naive. Until you have evidence, it is would be shrewd to call it "unexplained" not "paranormal".
Also you dont seem to know what science is, if a theory is falsifiable, then it is scientific.
Wait, I'm being schooled on science by someone who believes demons occasionally chase chickens around with brooms? How is your paranormal hypothesis in any way falsifiable? What observation or experiment at this point could possibly prove it wrong?
Here's another fitting scripture from the Book of Sagan:
...Science has a far keener appreciation of human imperfections and fallibility than does pseudoscience (or 'inerrant' revelation). If we resolutely refuse to acknowledge where we are liable to fall into error, then we can confidently expect that error - even serious error, profound mistakes - will be our companion forever. But if we are capable of a little courageous selfassessment, whatever rueful reflections they may engender, our chances improve enormously.
one recent afternoon, me and a buddy were taking a trek around a nearby neighborhood and made our way past a delapidated house that had all the familiar symptoms of being haunted.
he suggested we check it out so, of course, we did.
it looked like it had been abandoned probably 30-40 years earlier but the previous owners had left behind a small coffee table.
Joey: The very first book that I read about the issue was A Demon Haunted World, but I found it to be naive at times...
Really? Which times, might I ask? I find it ironic that you found it naive, considering Sagan's intent to build a case for the need for bullshit detection and then provide the techniques in laymens terms.
Or do you say this because he didn't validate your childhood experiences or those passed on verbally by your mother, but instead encouraged skepticism in how we perceive/explain odd events and memories? Because science can be a real bitch.
can any of you guess the bottle and the cause of my embarrassment?.
Of course it does.
can any of you guess the bottle and the cause of my embarrassment?.
After figuring out how to select a range of cells [in Excel] I decided to cream myself.
Some people get off on the strangest things.
how long ago was your last argument?
what was it about?
was it worth it?.
Don't we already have a Minimus on this forum?
I keed.
Gladiator: My belief is that I shall die. So I have a feeling it's all going to work out very neatly.
You, sir, are a philosopher and a prophet. A twofer, if you will.
one recent afternoon, me and a buddy were taking a trek around a nearby neighborhood and made our way past a delapidated house that had all the familiar symptoms of being haunted.
he suggested we check it out so, of course, we did.
it looked like it had been abandoned probably 30-40 years earlier but the previous owners had left behind a small coffee table.
Zoiks: I'm fairly certain that the demons gave you that dream.
I knew it. Damn Pentecostal garage sales get me every time.
one recent afternoon, me and a buddy were taking a trek around a nearby neighborhood and made our way past a delapidated house that had all the familiar symptoms of being haunted.
he suggested we check it out so, of course, we did.
it looked like it had been abandoned probably 30-40 years earlier but the previous owners had left behind a small coffee table.
Nambo: You are familiar with medicine balls? imagine one being fired from a cannon and aimed at my head, there is nothing that could have made that explosive thump and not broken the old fashioned single pane glass, that wasnt supernatural.
Translation: I'm personally unaware of the nearly infinite possible natural scenarios that could've made such a noise, therefore a supernatural explanation is better than reserving judgment and saying, "I don't know what caused the noise but it wasn't within my narrow range of auditory experiences."
How can anyone be so sure of himself to know his or her senses & psyche were not duped (or had not duped him), ergo it must be invisible spirits? Which is more likely?
EDIT: I'm sorry if I sound like I'm coming down on you hard, Nambo, but when people label events as supernatural because no natural explanation is clear to them, it gets my goat sometimes. "I don't know" deserves far more respect than it gets.
