 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> Cousin Ricky wrote:
>>>> how come we never see their internal organs?
>>>
>>> Ghosts are constructs of your mentality, not your physicality. Hence,
>>> since you don't normally think about your internal organs, most
>>> ghosts don't show them. Except Jon Osterman, sometimes.
>>>
>>
>> Got that partly right, its mental..
>
> Well, I was trying to imply that the ghost of John is based on John's
> mentality, and hence since John doesn't think about his guts, John's
> ghost won't have guts.
>
> Of course, your interpretation works too.
>
Ah, yeah. Your version was.. vague enough to kind of imply, in the minds
of some people, the whole "ghosts are like a recording of a person, so
since the person didn't think about their guts, their ghost won't show
them." One has to be real careful, when talking about the supposed
supernatural, not to lend accidental credence to what is non-credible. ;)
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Umm. I also spend way to much time on places that sometimes get mobbed
by the kind of people that think that the discovery of the ghost of
bigfoot, riding a dinosaur, while parachuting from and alien space ship,
while waving a piece of toast with Baby Jesus on it, constitutes proof
of Radical Christian mythology and that Richard Dawkin's conspired with
Darwin, Hitler and Genghis Khan, using ... who the heck knows what, to
undermine faith by inventing DNA.
Believe me, even though the stuff above was pulled out of my ass in like
20 seconds, there is "probably" some nutcase making the exact same
argument on a creationist site as I write this. Its pure Poe: "Nothing
you can make up about what some people believe can **ever** be crazier
than what someone, someplace, already thinks is true."
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcable com> wrote:
> ...and that Richard Dawkin's conspired with
> Darwin, Hitler and Genghis Khan, using ... who the heck knows what, to
> undermine faith by inventing DNA.
*Almost* a conspiracy theory, except the Hitler part; Hitler was a Christian in
good standing until (just before?) he blew his brains out. Except that the
apologists are in vehement denial about that, so the conspiracy theory (which
is imaginary to begin with) will probably fly anyway.
It wasn't Darwin, Dawkins, or Genghis Khan that undermined my faith. What
happened is that I figured "in case of disagreement between faith and reality,
reality wins." Wasn't until I decided to learn about my sister's new faith
(Seventh Day Adventist) that I realized that I went about it all wrong.
> Believe me, even though the stuff above was pulled out of my ass in like
> 20 seconds, there is "probably" some nutcase making the exact same
> argument on a creationist site as I write this.
Not a creationist site, but some New Age left wingers considered DNA a myth.
Seems (1) they didn't like genetic determinism; (2) therefore DNA doesn't
exist. (Just Establishment propaganda intended to squelch people's aspirations
by telling them "You are this, you are that...") Unfortunately, I can't find
the magazine article. Creationists, New Agers, hard to tell 'em apart except
that the former have more political power, and tend to be more fatalistic on
behalf of us poor slobs who'll be Left Behind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Ah, yeah. Your version was.. vague enough to kind of imply, in the minds
> of some people, the whole "ghosts are like a recording of a person, so
> since the person didn't think about their guts, their ghost won't show
> them."
That's what I intended, without attempting to imply I believed it. :-)
> One has to be real careful, when talking about the supposed
> supernatural, not to lend accidental credence to what is non-credible. ;)
What makes you think the effect is supernatural?
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
> > One has to be real careful, when talking about the supposed
> > supernatural, not to lend accidental credence to what is non-credible. ;)
>
> What makes you think the effect is supernatural?
1) Natural effects tend to leave evidence that is more tangible than lens
flares, overexposed camera straps, and imprints on the reporter's central
nervous system.
2) There is no known natural accounting for dead people somehow being alive with
diaphanous bodies and no internal organs, or for clothing just as ethereal as
the bodies. But that could change. (Of course, Bill's dead person is neither
diaphanous nor clothed, so she might be natural after all.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Yeah. Would be damn funny to watch these clowns run around getting
> freaked, if, every time I turn them on, I have to remember that probably
> 60-70% of the US actually think these people are **evidence** that
> ghosts are really real, or they wouldn't be "looking for them".
Wow. I took their show to be completely different. They seem to take a
skeptical approach, but I suppose you have a point there...
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Cousin Ricky wrote:
> 1) Natural effects tend to leave evidence that is more tangible than lens
> flares, overexposed camera straps, and imprints on the reporter's central
> nervous system.
Some do, some don't. :-) Look at the long history of things we didn't
know about until we got the right measuring instruments. Do you think
the placebo effect is supernatural too? :-)
> 2) There is no known natural accounting for dead people somehow being alive
What makes you think they're dead people (assuming anything there has
actually been seen, that is)? Anyway, see above.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Cousin Ricky wrote:
> > 1) Natural effects tend to leave evidence that is more tangible than lens
> > flares, overexposed camera straps, and imprints on the reporter's central
> > nervous system.
>
> Some do, some don't. :-) Look at the long history of things we didn't
> know about until we got the right measuring instruments. Do you think
> the placebo effect is supernatural too? :-)
Effects that are supernatural remain so until proven otherwise. Or I think
that's how it goes.
> > 2) There is no known natural accounting for dead people somehow being alive
>
> What makes you think they're dead people (assuming anything there has
> actually been seen, that is)? Anyway, see above.
So they're like Danny Phantom? Cool!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Yeah. Would be damn funny to watch these clowns run around getting
>> freaked, if, every time I turn them on, I have to remember that
>> probably 60-70% of the US actually think these people are **evidence**
>> that ghosts are really real, or they wouldn't be "looking for them".
>
> Wow. I took their show to be completely different. They seem to take a
> skeptical approach, but I suppose you have a point there...
>
Maybe should watch them seriously some time then. For the most part,
these kinds of shows tend to take things way too seriously, due to the
people on them being complete twits. If I am wrong about this one, then,
guess that proves, once again, that Sci-Fi is marginally more rational a
station than "Discovery", which had both the moron that claimed to talk
to the dead, the pet psychic women, and and endless series of
docu-delusions about people haunted, possessed, etc. by ghosts, demons,
or what ever.
Its hardly a wonder people can't tell the difference between science and
gibberish, which channels that are "supposed to" dedicate themselves to
science run total bunk all the time. Its gotten persistently absurd
enough that I change channels the moment someone even "hints" at this
kind of stuff.
Though, I admit, watching cryptozoologists run around looking for "scary
creatures" and only finding undefined foot prints and the same lame
"heat images" is damn funny, again, until you realize there are people
out there "expecting" them to actually find bigfoot at some point. lol
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Ah, yeah. Your version was.. vague enough to kind of imply, in the
>> minds of some people, the whole "ghosts are like a recording of a
>> person, so since the person didn't think about their guts, their ghost
>> won't show them."
>
> That's what I intended, without attempting to imply I believed it. :-)
>
> > One has to be real careful, when talking about the supposed
>> supernatural, not to lend accidental credence to what is non-credible. ;)
>
> What makes you think the effect is supernatural?
>
Umm. I don't. The term is **completely** meaningless, in that if
something has any effect at all on the world, it "becomes" natural, even
if its only on the person's nervous system. I said **supposed** there.
Its the term the believers in it like to use, because they have this
logic short circuit in which they think the "mind" and somehow sense,
are somehow separate from the physical world, therefor its possible for
some "other" world to muck with their perceptions, while having no
effect on the real world. The irony being, they then use physical
devices to run around "looking for" the damn things.. lol Which is it
people? Either you can measure it, and their for its "material" or you
can't, so it isn't. You can't have it both ways. ;)
Seriously though, would you prefer "alleged supernatural", since you
seem to want to make a court case out of it? jk ;)
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
