Posted on 01/28/2014 11:50:18 AM PST by BlatherNaut
Don't bother answering, please. I have to draw a line here.
“It didn’t happen” is a way of rejecting the evidence....
There’s no evidence to reject!
I’ll rephrase it for you, because I really think you might learn from a sincere discussion of this:
It takes a significant amount of superstition to believe in metaphysical naturalism.
I know, I know....but police use this technique to smoke suspects out all the time. Beating a lie detector test can be done, but it's rare.
Leni
You need to put yourself in the position of authority when this family starts to tell their story. The family went to them with their story after first going to the church (initially denied), the police (crazy bunch), etc.
What would you do if you were suppose to make an assessment of a family who insists they have ghosts, are all possessed by demons, etc. If you go clinical, there has to be some mental illness going on here.... AT First. But after police, DCS and the church investigated, all reports along with several witnesses (many of whom were named in reports but refused to be interviewed), included a conclusion of "Paranormal Activity."
Ironically, I have met Athiests who "believe in evil spirits, ghosts and the devil" but not a "god." That's a mind bender there.
I’ll rephrase it for you, because I really think you might learn from a sincere discussion of this:
It takes a significant amount of superstition to believe in metaphysical naturalism.
<><><
It might be a tad presumptuous on your part to think I’ve never had those discussions.
I have no problem with your amended statement at all. Silly to think we can quantify and compare the amount of superstition to believe x or y.
My apologies for being presumptuous, and for not being clear. I was referring to a general quantification, not a numerically measured one.
But let’s not miss the point: the commonly held assumption that science disproves things like faith and the existence of entities beyond the physical world is a bit superficial.
If I again seem to be condescending and it upsets you, this is not my intention. I admit sometimes I try to illustrate the fact that the commonly held assumption is not necessarily the most well thought out view. I think this is necessary largely because the left—whether in a political context or on matters of faith and science—often presumes to have the intellectual advantage when in most if not all cases the leftist view comes from at least a mild to moderate deficit in the analytical process.
He’d be blurry like Bigfoot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.