What do atheists have to say about incidents like these?

[George-ananda]

Physical science is only concerned with investigating, explaining nd testing natural phenomena, natural events, not the spiritual realms or not supernatural and paranormal phenomena.

We agree on that actually. That is why I am also interested in other fields of study and learning.

In any case, there are no empirical and verifiable evidences to support these supernatural.

AS we know that is our disagreement. I on the other hand have come to believe in the existence of the so-called supernatural by the quantity, quality and consistency of the evidence.

And I think you already know my position on “anecdotal evidences”, where I don’t view anecdote as evidence at all, as I believe they are useless in science.

Again, I consider the quantity, quality and consistency of the anecdotal evidence also and that analysis can influence my view of reality.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

3) I'm an atheist, but that's not because I think I have all the answers. Quite the opposite.

Well then, shouldn't you consider yourself an agnostic?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

there are no empirical and verifiable evidences to support these supernatural.

Uhh...the OP just presented some. Is it proof? No. But it is evidence. (To those who witnessed it, it is proof.)

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Just atheists? Such an insult to the sensible
Christians etc who dont fall for such nonsense.

You must not be aware the Scriptures teach that Jesus "cast out demons." - Matthew 8:16.

How can a person really follow Jesus, if they don't follow what the Bible says about him?
Is there another source from which we can learn about Jesus?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

NO, I am not "trying to say" that. If you used your
needle you would know I am not saying something
so stupid as that.

Most unknowns involve a lot of possibilities, often
beyond what we ever think of. That is kind of a thing
about unknowns.

It appears to me, though, that you are not
considering even two possibilities, but,
instead, only one, that the "cumulative weight"
dd up to only your conclusion.

Notice the q. you avoided, in favour of
making up something rather ridiculous about me.

Here is is again-

Have you considered that it might point to
something other than what you want?

Well, I'm glad you recognize that as "stupid"...but it sure sounds as if you arbitrarily think it's all fake.


Like what? What "possibilities", do you think there are, accounting for the observed event of the boy walking backwards up the wall, in the hospital?

 

[Curious George]

.

This article and link is no better than Hadar Judah’s original article at the OP, which was already full of pseudoscience garbage.

?? Why do you think that?

 

[Jumi]

Where does the report say that “the kids were performing and encouraged to do so by the mother’s behavior.”?

On that same page 2

Where does anything say that? You lie everytime you post and then you lie about lying. Why do you make such a big deal out of it?

You've been slandering me from the get-go. Why is it that you do that, instead of presenting evidence for your case.

You act like people don’t have two eyes of their own and can’t read the report for themselves.

You're foolign around.

Lmao.

You should work on your reading comprehension so you don't misunderstand things so much. Though you'd probably laugh a little less.

 

[Jumi]

That’s the point that I’m trying to make in this thread. Regardless of how much documented evidence there is and regardless of who provides it, there will always be those people who will blindly deny it and try to make it seem like the people who are talking about it are crazy. Some people have been so conditioned by society to not believe that the supernatural is real, and it’s sad. The sad part is not their disbelief, but the fact that they criticize and try to belittle people who talk about it even when there is so much credible evidence and witnesses to prove it.

There are of course people like you who say there's a mountain of evidence, but refuse to point to it. You think you have a barn full of hay, but all we see is a small cottage and when we look inside there's just a bit of grass inside.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

We've all noticed here that some of our friends
place more credence on what the rest of us
might call "woo woo" than they do on they do
on science.

In another thread, the "flash frozen mammoth" thing
is getting an airing. "Coast to Coast" will supply
all the hollow earth, chupacabre, bigfoot, flying
saucer Atlantis, etc that anyone could want.

Care to share your ideas about what draws people
to woo woo, and how they calculate that such
is the cutting edge of real understanding,
however much it is rejected by conservative
stodgy old "mainstream science"?

The short answer is that our brain is cognitively lazy, and will favor Mysticism and Magic, over Rationalism and Reality. Our brain also has the evolutionary instilled tendency towards the phenomena of pareidolia(pattern recognition), and apophenia(perceptual connections with the meaningless). These phenomena exist because we carrying a crap-load(hundreds) of unevolved left over ancestral biases. These ancestral biases(racial, confirmation, negative, positive, cognitive, self-serving, belief, implicit, explicit, etc.) may have given our ancestors a survival, environmental, language, and social advantages, to cope with changes in their early environment. But unfortunately, these biases do not apply in the same way in today's environment. Some can actually be harmful. The growth of our human society has evolved too fast over the last 200 years, for Evolution to keep up. This also includes our cognitive abilities to keep pace with modern society.

For the vast majority of our biases, our ability to critically think and reason is enough to overcome our subconscious narratives. But for supernatural, religious and superstitious beliefs, they seem to be compartmentalized by the brain, to avoid the application of reason and critical thinking. This also tends to open the cognitive "slippery slope" door to a whole host of other irrationally related beliefs. We also can't access any of our subconscious biases for introspection. Trying to educate people to change their biases, is like trying to get fish to notice the water they swim in. These compartmentalized preferences are protected/exempt from even the rules, expectations, and principles that we use to govern our everyday lives.

Another way to look at this, is to see how perception influences the mind. There are two types of perceptions. "Bottom-up, and Top down". The information that the brain receives from its senses is generally the same for all of us(Bottom up). The problem is how that information is interpreted by the brain, and conceptualized through its subconscious filters(Top down). The "woo's" and the "non-woo's" both use the same bottom-up processes when receiving sensory information. That is, when both are looking at an image of a face on Mars, both see the same image. The problem is in the "Top-down" processing by the brain. For the "woos", this same information is also filtered through their belief and expectation biases, and lead many to make overreached conclusions(that it was built by aliens). For the "non-woos" this same information is limited only by the facts, without any associated beliefs or expectations(it only look like a face). This is why when both groups look at the same evidence in supernatural possession stories, one group never reaches beyond the evidence, and the other subconsciously must, to form their conclusions.

This is an example of the effect of just one of our subconscious biases, and how it can effect behavior.

 

[ChristineM]

What about the other 7-8 news outlets that I posted?... nothing to say about those, right.

They were not mentioned in the op. Do you think people can read minds. Post the named of those outlets with links to the story and i will research the validity of them for you. Or you could simply do it yourself.

 

[blü 2]

Especially considering the fact that most cases like these usually have multiple credible eyewitnesses.

This is the sort of thing that appeals to people who go in for this sort of thing.

You don't send for the police. You send for James Randi and Michael Shermer.

If they say it's authentic then we can set up a zoo to study the breeding and feeding habits of ghosts and demons. We'll also need a lab to examine the manner in which they exist, questions like their defenses and toxicity, and the best cages. The armed services will want to check for military uses and we'll have business lining up to explore commercial applications.

I also foresee a market for them as pets.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Because I don’t understand why you even bothered to say any of what you said, because everything that you were mentioning is present as evidence in the police reports, intake report, etc.

Which is all evidence being reviewed second, or third, or fourth-hand. None of it conclusively PROVES anything. In the end - at best all parties involved can say no more than "I don't know what the hell happened." Because they can't produce a shred of knowledge as to the true cause. Not one. They have nothing that links it to "the supernatural", and just because they have no natural explanation doesn't mean they get to shout "it was them thar' demons!!!" That's just asinine. That's not how knowledge of any worth is obtained or demonstrated anywhere else in life. Except in "spiritual" matters. Which is very telling. And is the core reason why skepticism exists, and must exist. Without it, we'd all be doomed to intellectual stunted-ness.

 

[Audie]

You must not be aware the Scriptures teach that Jesus "cast out demons." - Matthew 8:16.

How can a person really follow Jesus, if they don't follow what the Bible says about him?
Is there another source from which we can learn about Jesus?

Dont worry, "Satan knows scripture" and so do I.

E ven if the "casting demoms" were not apocryphal,
it would hardly make every ridiculous bit of woo woo
true.

 

[Audie]

Which is all evidence being reviewed second, or third, or fourth-hand. None of it conclusively PROVES anything. In the end - at best all parties involved can say no more than "I don't know what the hell happened." Because they can't produce a shred of knowledge as to the true cause. Not one. They have nothing that links it to "the supernatural", and just because they have no natural explanation doesn't mean they get to shout "it was them thar' demons!!!" That's just asinine. That's not how knowledge of any worth is obtained or demonstrated anywhere else in life. Except in "spiritual" matters. Which is very telling. And is the core reason why skepticism exists, and must exist. Without it, we'd all be doomed to intellectual stunted-ness.

Our friends' fair and balanced weighing of
evidence never includes consideration of
what the cumulative weight of such failure
might mean.

 

[Audie]

Well, I'm glad you recognize that as "stupid"...but it sure sounds as if you arbitrarily think it's all fake.


Like what? What "possibilities", do you think there are, accountin

g for the observed event of the boy walking backwards up the wall, in the hospital?

I am delighted to hear uou think it is possible
for some beliefs to be stupid.

It is stupid to believe some outlandish story if
you 've not done your due diligence.

Due diligence might have saved a lot of investors
from hoaxes and ponzi svhemes far better crafted
than the walk up wall hoax.

As to your "observed" what do you make of the
observation of a mermaid, by two of C. Columbus'
sailors? The latter day observations of Elvis,
Bigfoot, etc?

Do you have some sort of standards that you apply
to which impossible things you dont believe?
Purely arbitrary?

You are confusing "arbitrary" with healthy / sane
skepticism.

Improbable claims call for skepticism. Guys who call
out "Love ya babe" when I walk by for examplr. Nothing
arbitrary about my disbelief.

Some things require dose of evidence. I am not
from Missouri but I think they got it right with
their dirt -farmer wisdom.. "show me."

 

[gnostic]

Again, I consider the quantity, quality and consistency of the anecdotal evidence also and that analysis can influence my view of reality.

Man, George. You really don’t get that anecdotal evidences are merely informal testimonies of people being interviewed, and that such personal accounts, doesn’t guarantee what they (ie the interviewees) say to be “accurate”, “reliable” or “honest”.

Anecdotal evidences don’t determine which testimonies are true and which are lies.

Do you seriously believe that every testimonies are “true”?
Can you tell me that everyone’s anecdotes are unbiased and objective?

And determining which testimonies are true, would require a interviewer’s interpretation to each anecdotes, but how would you know the interviewer himself is reliable, honest and unbiased?

And since this concern the paranormal and the supernatural, then I don’t think anything that come from anecdotes to be reliable and honest, nor the parapsychologists being honest, reliable or unbiased.

Can you honestly believe the analyses of the parapsychologists?

I don’t, and I certainly don’t trust their methodology of gathering their so-called “evidences”.

 

[George-ananda]

Man, George. You really don’t get that anecdotal evidences are merely informal testimonies of people being interviewed, and that such personal accounts, doesn’t guarantee what they (ie the interviewees) say to be “accurate”, “reliable” or “honest”.

Anecdotal evidences don’t determine which testimonies are true and which are lies.

Do you seriously believe that every testimonies are “true”?
Can you tell me that everyone’s anecdotes are unbiased and objective?

And determining which testimonies are true, would require a interviewer’s interpretation to each anecdotes, but how would you know the interviewer himself is reliable, honest and unbiased?

And since this concern the paranormal and the supernatural, then I don’t think anything that come from anecdotes to be reliable and honest, nor the parapsychologists being honest, reliable or unbiased.

Can you honestly believe the analyses of the parapsychologists?

I don’t, and I certainly don’t trust their methodology of gathering their so-called “evidences”.

Man, Gnostic, you are still not getting what I've been saying. I am fully aware that anecdotes can be lies, can be honest misinterpretations and can also be pretty much just as the teller claims.

I may never know with 100% certainty on a particular case but I do step back using my judgment of the overall honesty of the general public of humanity and their general competency. I do think most (not all) basically try to be honest.

My key point is that I do not believe every paranormal claim ever is a lie or misinterpretation. I do not feel that is a reasonable position based on the quantity, quality and consistency of anecdotal, experimental, investigative and personal experiences of mankind. I believe these things indicate that we are living in a universe vastly and dramatically more complex than what is understood by science.

And finally, anecdotes are not just event stories collected by parapsychologists. They also include every story from people I know and from random regular-seeming people on the internet. And of course I need to repeat that I know people (especially those I don't know personally) can lie and misinterpret but I do not reasonably think that is what is happening in EVERY case.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Well, I'm going to differ with that translation of what I said. I don't consider the quantity, quality and consistency of the things I am referring to can fairly be equated with 'crap'. I think it shows evidence for a universe that is more complicated than the materialist's view and a view much better understood by various esoteric wisdom traditions.

Perhaps materialist science requires physical proof of everything but my concern in all this goes beyond materialist science. My concern is: given all evidence and argumentation from all sides, what is the most reasonable position to hold.

Multiple consistent human experiences is evidence to me particularly if it is of one particular event (two people see the same ghost for example). . I believe physical evidence has been captured by various devices but are by their nature not reproducible so not evidence that materialist science works well with. Again, I am not concerned here with applying scientism to the questions.

What I am saying is that in my objective judgment materialist science's understanding of all of reality is dramatically incomplete from the evidence I have been discussing. And that there is a type of 'arrogance' in many proponents of materialism that will insist on force fitting many different types of phenomena inside their box of understanding.

What you initially stated was that "the cumulative weight of a thousand and one stories I have experienced or heard of in my lifetime that has me convinced the paranormal does happen". The quality or the consistency of the stories is irrelevant without OBJECTIVE evidence. If you heard a thousand and one stories that aliens and UFO's have visited and abducted people on the planet, would you believe that aliens and UFO's really exist? Would you seriously expect science to lower its objective standards for evidence to accommodate fact-less claims, based only on the frequency and quality of the claims? Should science validate the existence of all unfalsifiable claims simply by default? My argument was that it would take only ONE objectively verifiable piece of evidence to convince me, that a supernatural event can occur. Why does it take a thousand and one events, with ZERO objective evidence, to convince you?

On the macro scale, the Universe is not that complicated. There are rules that it must follow, and laws that it must obey. These are collectively the four forces in Nature. There is possible a fifth force to accommodate and justify our use of constants. The Universe is also based on the law of cause and effect. All things that exist in this Universe, are governed by this law, and controlled by these forces. Anything else simply does not exist within this Universe. All supernatural, meta-physical, spiritual, or paranormal claims are all extraordinary claims. Thus, you have the burden of proof. Not the burden of belief.

What I am saying is that in my objective judgment materialist science's understanding of all of reality is dramatically incomplete from the evidence I have been discussing. And that there is a type of 'arrogance' in many proponents of materialism that will insist on force fitting many different types of phenomena inside their box of understanding.

Your judgements will always be subjective, since your perspective is always subjective. Science makes no claims at all regarding the existence of the supernatural and the paranormal. All it could say is why this would be impossible, and please present your evidence why it is possible. Why has every single paranormal supernatural claim fail, even under casual scrutiny? Even when million dollar prizes were offered since the 60's, to anyone to demonstrate any paranormal activity, why has no one collected a dime? What you are really saying, is that it is my cognitive and confirmation bias that tells me those thousands of failures just can't be true. Therefore, it must be the science that is wrong, or unable to detect what I belief is the truth. Why wouldn't science want to know all aspects of all phenomena? Natural or un-natural?

 

[Audie]

Man, George. You really don’t get that anecdotal evidences are merely informal testimonies of people being interviewed, and that such personal accounts, doesn’t guarantee what they (ie the interviewees) say to be “accurate”, “reliable” or “honest”.

Anecdotal evidences don’t determine which testimonies are true and which are lies.

Do you seriously believe that every testimonies are “true”?
Can you tell me that everyone’s anecdotes are unbiased and objective?

And determining which testimonies are true, would require a interviewer’s interpretation to each anecdotes, but how would you know the interviewer himself is reliable, honest and unbiased?

And since this concern the paranormal and the supernatural, then I don’t think anything that come from anecdotes to be reliable and honest, nor the parapsychologists being honest, reliable or unbiased.

Can you honestly believe the analyses of the parapsychologists?

I don’t, and I certainly don’t trust their methodology of gathering their so-called “evidences”.

I wonder what % of the population at any given time
is involved with these hoaxes. Most people probably
are pretty honest. Making up a story, lying, does not
suit most of us.

Since I-we- tend to think others may be more or less
like us, when someone tells a story there is a tendency
to give them the benefit of the doubt. Assume they
are not just lying, or, crazy. "Dont be cynical".

I am not mentally unbalanced, so I dont see things that
are not there, or otherwise come up with sincere but
utterly false stories.

Those with a persuasive style, an instinct for what another
wants to hear, someone like that can sell hair tonic,
penny stocks, used cars, and tales of the paranormal
easily.

Cynical comes in where such people take advantage of
this innocent aspect of human nature, asduning others
wont just lie to their faces.

 

[George-ananda]

What you initially stated was that "the cumulative weight of a thousand and one stories I have experienced or heard of in my lifetime that has me convinced the paranormal does happen". The quality or the consistency of the stories is irrelevant without OBJECTIVE evidence. If you heard a thousand and one stories that aliens and UFO's have visited and abducted people on the planet, would you believe that aliens and UFO's really exist? Would you seriously expect science to lower its objective standards for evidence to accommodate fact-less claims, based only on the frequency and quality of the claims? Should science validate the existence of all unfalsifiable claims simply by default?

Here's a good point for me to jump in with a point I have already made in this thread. I am actually fine with science being slow and cautious. However, I (not being an adherent of scientism) consider more than science in forming my overall understanding of reality. Other esoteric wisdom traditions and the paranormal claims of mankind are also things I consider. I feel science is great but limited in what it can know and I consider the full body of all human experiences.

My argument was that it would take only ONE objectively verifiable piece of evidence to convince me, that a supernatural event can occur. Why does it take a thousand and one events, with ZERO objective evidence, to convince you?

Well the majority of paranormal and spiritual events are spontaneous and not predictable. 'Science' does not work well with such things. Also I think the experimental and paranormal investigative work by professionals is just simply looked down upon by many with an unfortunate arrogant attitude that too many in science seem to hold.

On the macro scale, the Universe is not that complicated. There are rules that it must follow, and laws that it must obey. These are collectively the four forces in Nature. There is possible a fifth force to accommodate and justify our use of constants. The Universe is also based on the law of cause and effect. All things that exist in this Universe, are governed by this law, and controlled by these forces. Anything else simply does not exist within this Universe. All supernatural, meta-physical, spiritual, or paranormal claims are all extraordinary claims. Thus, you have the burden of proof. Not the burden of belief.

Well, I think you are overrating the understanding of science. To me things like dark matter, quantum mechanics, the nature of consciousness has me believing science (although a great thing) has a long, long way to go. At this point observation can precede understanding.