I have experienced things I can't explain, but that doesn't mean they were paranormal happenings. I imagine seeing a shooting star or the aurora borealis/australis would be freaky without science to explain it.
Hell, it's still fairly magical even when you know what's going on.
^ I'm thinking this is more the case. Something happens that you can't explain, but it isn't supernatural. Now, if I see a glowing body moving stuff around and moving through walls, I'll change my mind.
The word paranormal encompasses so many things, from cryptids to the multitude of spirit types that supposedly exist, (demonic, poltergeist, etc.) the answer probably isn't as simple as a yes or a no. I personally believe that there are things beyond what we think we know, I have many rich, leather-bound books on the folklore and legends of my local area. I know a few overly skeptical people who 'demand proof that ghosts exist', yet whenever I ask them what proof would suffice they usually look at me dumbfounded. If you're going to demand video evidence, then instantly dismiss any video evidence you're presented with because it could be faked, then you're a moron and you shouldn't involve yourself in an open-minded discussion. I mean, is there anything that couldn't be faked on a video with the right resources? Paranormal skeptics are the worst goalpost movers.
Paranormal research is something we should definitely be doing. Imagine the things we could discover about the psyche or human potential even without any discovery of evidence regarding spirits and the like. Nothing contradicts nature, but what we think we know is contradicted almost daily.
__________________ Then lets head down into that cellar and carve ourselves a witch
I’ve never viewed the supernatural as “super”, more along the lines of unexplained occurrences that are inherently within the confines of the mundane; a mere side-effect to the reality in which we exist is bound to happen in an organic fashion after a set amount of time. Usually when the term “paranormal”, “ghosts”, or “spirits”, people automatically equate it with the horrid escapades of spiritualism and hokey practices creating a knee jerk reaction that isn’t truly informed. I’m sure one with your beliefs wouldn’t be shocked to the core at how seemingly open minded sects eschew the very thought of the beyond.
I agree in that more research should be done in scientific setting on the matter. Individuals that have experienced something out of the pale know exactly how real these encounters can be and not in a hallucinatory fashion. Granted, there could be a myriad number of explanations for these seemingly strange encounters, but I truly believe they’d all inherently be grounded in the known sciences.
He's a f ucking lunatic. Paranormal "research" is a perfect example of pseudoscience. It goes out looking for something it already believes exists and then interprets its findings through that bias. Meanwhile, actual science has shown how humans can interpret random noises as voices if they're told they're voices beforehand, and have replicated various supposed "visible ghosts" through cheap, cinematic trickery. So, again, real science debunking pseudoscience. He'll probably resort to using some kind of stupid solipsism as a rebuttal.
Eon I know you follow Demonology so in a way I consider occurrences that are malicious and unexplainable supernatural. I have seen photos of spirits from my uncle who is a spiritualist medium. He blesses houses. Of course that's my testimony though.
__________________ 2 spellcasters are better than 1
Defining any of this, then agreeing to that definition, and then testing for stuff that fits that definition is really the only way to go about it. You'd think we'd have far far more evidence for this stuff since AV recording is so extremely pervasive, now.
KMC Community Forums
May 8th, 2020 12:40 AM
2 spellcasters are better than 1
