[Console]

Many will always tell you that children for example are more "open" to life for example in their views, and thus more like to experience phenomenae.

I've heard of this, but I've never directly heard people say it. It is just a misinterpretation of the facts though. Children's imaginations and generally far more active than those of adults (though not as refined) because they don't yet understand the limits of the universe around them, therefore they are far more likely to believe their imaginings than a full grown-adult. It's not that they're more 'open' to paranormal phenomenon, but that they share their imaginings as though they were facts, and may not have the ability to fully explain them-selves, leaving other to fill in the gaps with their own imaginations.

[Chris]

I can fly by flapping my arms really quickly, Viv.

Do you think it's acceptable for me to refuse to prove it to you, and to instead ask you to prove that I can't?

If something is extremely unfeasible you really need to have some solid and independent proof to make skeptics believe. To go back to my flying, if I "proved" it to you by showing you a letter from my neighbor who has seen me (who you don't know), does that make it irrefutable?

[Boboff]

Is your neighbour a man or a woman ?

[Munki Bhoy]

Why would anyone choose to completely believe in something of which there's no proof? And why would anyone choose to completely dismiss something of which there's no proof? The history of the human race is full of stuff we took ages to understand, resulting in people believing absolute nonsense and dismissing stuff that turned out to be true. For example...

The Earth goes round the Sun? Really?! * off, nutcase! Where's your proof? Have you been there? No? Well then.

Personally, I'm open to possibilities. Yup, I'm an agnostic as opposed to an atheist. Mainly because for the most part, "the truth" plays absolutely no part in "the now", so what it is doesn't actually matter all that much!

[Console]

Why would anyone choose to completely believe in something of which there's no proof? And why would anyone choose to completely dismiss something of which there's no proof?

It's a binary choice, there is not really any middle ground here, you either believe something, or you don't believe it. Besides, people rarely get to 'choose' what they believe in.

Yup, I'm an agnostic as opposed to an atheist.

Are you agnostic in terms of one specific god/religion, or are you unsure about all religions/gods?

[catherine]

Christ we have this arguement once a month. People believe in things, people believe in nothing, we have this debate, the same people believe in things, the same people believe in nothing.

[DevilsDuck]

time of the month catherine?

[catherine]

Why? Do you want to put a french stick up my flanny?

[DevilsDuck]

ay? im not beadle poke!

no I meant its the time of the month for the "believe" debate

[lima eel]

no I meant its the time of the month for the "believe" debate

WHAT A LIAR!! , nice try at the cover up though

[DevilsDuck]

*sigh* Were not all sickos on here!

[Munki Bhoy]

It's a binary choice, there is not really any middle ground here, you either believe something, or you don't believe it. Besides, people rarely get to 'choose' what they believe in.

True, but not believing in something is not the same as point blank dismissing it as wrong.

Are you agnostic in terms of one specific god/religion, or are you unsure about all religions/gods?

I don't see how you can be agnostic in terms of just one religion. Although when you look at most of them they have pretty much the same thing from one religion to the next.

There are elements of most religions that I find... hard to swallow. Those tend to be the bits some people believe word for word where most would interpret the message. Other bits I find somewhat pointless. Like giving over specific times of the day/week/month/year/whatever to converse with a supposed omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being. And some bits I just find hilarious. Like the bit about being nice to each other, given how many wars are started over religion.

[Console]

True, but not believing in something is not the same as point blank dismissing it as wrong.

Well, there is a difference between not believing in something and believing something is wrong, but in most instances the two are generally indistinguishable.

There are elements of most religions that I find... hard to swallow. Those tend to be the bits some people believe word for word where most would interpret the message. Other bits I find somewhat pointless. Like giving over specific times of the day/week/month/year/whatever to converse with a supposed omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being. And some bits I just find hilarious. Like the bit about being nice to each other, given how many wars are started over religion.

I find it easier to ignore all of the religious ideology and skip straight to the mythology - it's not any easier to believe, but it's far more interesting to read. Some of the best stories are religious myths.

[TIAL]

Why would anyone choose to completely believe in something of which there's no proof?

Because it's 'believing'. If there was proof it would be called 'knowing'.

[foot-loose]

If there was proof it would be called 'knowing'.

Unless there was pudding involved.

Then it would be called "eating".

[DevilsDuck]

Eating words has never given me indigestion

[Bonanzoid]

Hmm interesting. No, wait... the other one - tedious.

[Console]

Bender!

[Vivienne]

I can fly by flapping my arms really quickly, Viv.

Do you think it's acceptable for me to refuse to prove it to you, and to instead ask you to prove that I can't?

If something is extremely unfeasible you really need to have some solid and independent proof to make skeptics believe. To go back to my flying, if I "proved" it to you by showing you a letter from my neighbor who has seen me (who you don't know), does that make it irrefutable?

It comes as no surprise that you can scoot past flapping arms quickly (ha ha!!).

I wouldn't think it was acceptable for you to refuse to prove it to me, no. But then, that's the thing about people: if they can't see/feel/touch something, they think it just can't possibly exist .. which kind of brings me to the point that sometimes there can be no explanations for things, and it's necessary just to "believe".

[DevilsDuck]

I wouldn't think it was acceptable for you to refuse to prove it to me, no. But then, that's the thing about people: if they can't see/feel/touch something, they think it just can't possibly exist .. which kind of brings me to the point that sometimes there can be no explanations for things, and it's necessary just to "believe".

Viv thats utter shite!

There is an explanation for everything, its just finding it out!

and it certainly is not necessary to "believe" just because you down know the answer!

[Vivienne]

An explanation for everything? Yet, how come so many things in this life are, indeed, unexplained?

[DevilsDuck]

like what.....ghosts?

[Vivienne]

Yes, ghosts are indeed a good example.

[DevilsDuck]

So, because "ghosts" are unexplained you should "believe" they are real?

[Vivienne]

Well, I've posted this before, but I've had a ghost in the house, making a whole load of noise.... there was NO rational explanation, but something was there. I swear it.