Craziest Belief Challenge!

Originally posted by sumydid
Stick THAT in your pipe and smoke it! 😠

What?

Originally posted by sumydid
I didn't "outdo" myself. I think you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. What I said is factually correct.

"Some Christians believe some Atheists are beyond help"

So what? Some Atheists ARE beyond help, every Christian believes that. But we Christians don't know which Atheists those are. Only God knows. Therefore each and every Atheist is a ...[text shortened]... Fact. Google it. Start a poll. Do what you gotta do, if you are so convinced I am wrong.

No, what you said is not factually correct. All I need is one Christian who thinks that there is one atheist who is not a potential Christian, and your statement is false.

If some atheists are beyond help, then they cannot be 'potential Christians'. "So what?" You just contradicted yourself, that's what.

While we're all looking things up and reminding ourselves of the obvious, why don't you look up potential in the dictionary? Here, I did it for you:

po·ten·tial
adjective
1. possible, as opposed to actual: the potential uses of nuclear energy.
2. capable of being or becoming: a potential danger to safety.

Originally posted by FMF
Every single person on earth is a potential Brittany Spears fan.

Just don't let them see the bald pictures - ack!

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Just don't let them see the bald pictures - ack!

If someone does not have any hair on their head it means that that person never DID really have any hair on their head. Once a person really HAS hair, it cannot ever not be there. I have had deep personal experiences with my own luxuriant hair that confirm this.

Originally posted by JS357
The serious student may want to read these:

Explanation of rejection by of a subsequent paper by Physiologia Plantarum. The rejected paper was critical of Haselhoff's work. (It appears that the PP editor regrets having accepted Haselhoff's paper, and uses his opinion of that paper as unscientific, as a reason to reject a paper critical of Haselhoff; the re sed to discuss the rejection):

http://www.cicap.org/crops/en/jse_19_2_159-170_2005.pdf

Just read the link. I agree, it adequately supports the rejection of that study. Thanks js. The 'changes in the stalks' theory requires more substantive evidence.

The area was also one known apparently to have numerous crop circle makers.

I still have questions, if the circles found are all man made, particularly the highly complex ones, as to how they could be constructed so accurately over large distances (requiring solid surveying, I presume) and in the apparent time and without being witnessed (as human activity). The frequent lack of tracks that would be left by all that activity is also a question. There would be little left on the soft crops themselves, but elsewhere? Some of these are quite large constructions.

Not healed of my 'craziness' quite yet.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Done a little more research on stalk bending. It is a common feature on weather damaged crops, particularly in wheat which has suffered from frosts in spring, take a look at figure 16 from this paper -

http://www.ksre.ksu.edu/library/crpsl2/c646.pdf

That to me looks like a classic paranormal bent crop stem, yet it is explained by purely natural for ...[text shortened]... such as the one above, not just a handful. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

"I am interested in what you made of the peer reviewed site?"

js answered that one for me. It was disallowed, and it appears on good basis.

Originally posted by FMF
If someone does not have any hair on their head it means that that person never DID really have any hair on their head. Once a person really HAS hair, it cannot ever not be there. I have had deep personal experiences with my own luxuriant hair that confirm this.

So true! How many have shaved...err, I mean, discovered that they never really had hair...because of a few split ends?

Originally posted by Taoman
I still have questions, if the circles found are all man made, particularly the highly complex ones, as to how they could be constructed so accurately over large distances (requiring solid surveying, I presume) and in the apparent time and without being witnessed (as human activity). The frequent lack of tracks that would be left by all that activity is also ...[text shortened]... e left on the soft crops themselves, but elsewhere? Some of these are quite large constructions.

Its very easy to deal with all these questions. As I said, all you have to do is compare known hoax's with suspected 'real' ones. If a person studying them cannot correctly identify which is the hoax, then one can reasonably say there is no reason to believe the suspected 'real' one is likely also a hoax.
So for example you mention a 'frequent lack of tracks'. Were tracks left at hoax sites? Significantly more tracks than at suspected reals sites?
I think the real problem is that the vast majority of people involved in 'studying' this phenomena have never been inside a crop field in their lives and are just amazed by just about anything they find without ever stopping to ask 'but hey, does the neighboring crop field not also have this?'
The second problem is that most people have never actually visited the sites nor verified any of the information being given and are just taking as fact the claims of fanatics (who possibly didn't visit the sites either). I mean seriously, do you have any solid evidence that there is a lack of tracks at any of the sites in question? Who looked for tracks? Can he be trusted? How thoroughly did he look? Does he have an interest in blowing out of proportion any data he finds (or makes up)?

Originally posted by Taoman
Just read the link. I agree, it adequately supports the rejection of that study. Thanks js. The 'changes in the stalks' theory requires more substantive evidence.

The area was also one known apparently to have numerous crop circle makers.

I still have questions, if the circles found are all man made, particularly the highly complex ones, as to how they ...[text shortened]... ere? Some of these are quite large constructions.

Not healed of my 'craziness' quite yet.

The questions you are asking are valid, but to conclude from a lack of established naturalistic earthly explanations that an extraterrestrial (ET) hypothesis is somehow made more respectable or as respectable, is a form of fallacy of ad ignoriantam. I am not saying that you have done this, but sometimes words can be interpreted that way or peoples intentions are 'filled in' for them by their audience.

If there are any "angels did it" types here, I would like to add that the scientific approach could conceivably support a naturalistic ET cause, but by the nature of science itself, cannot support a supernatural ET cause. Any such cause would, by gaining scientific support, become part of the natural world as science sees it, just as protons and dark matter have or may become part of it. The angels would become a form of ET, to be scientifically investigated and treated as inhabitants of the natural world.

Originally posted by FMF
What?

A dancing Brittany Spears! Didn't you hear him?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Its very easy to deal with all these questions. As I said, all you have to do is compare known hoax's with suspected 'real' ones. If a person studying them cannot correctly identify which is the hoax, then one can reasonably say there is no reason to believe the suspected 'real' one is likely also a hoax.
So for example you mention a 'frequent lack of tr ...[text shortened]... es he have an interest in blowing out of proportion any data he finds (or makes up)?

Ok, I am relying on sites that in my opinion look credible. But even if I (or you - have you visited one?) went to a site or three we must finally rely on inductive reasoning which is probablistic , not deductive proof. So, one way or the other my (or our) few findings will effect the probabilities minimally either way, in view of the large number of global instances.

The evidential requirements you raise can be applied both ways for either the negative or positive argument. Those making the extraordinary claims must provide extraordinary evidence, however. I accept that. My own decision remains open, partially for the reasons you raise. "Evidences" must be closely examined.

It is a holistic view, the coherence (or not) of the whole apparent account, not just focus on one aspect alone, that provide a probability summation for me thus far. Can you see how large structures like that can be done accurately without significant survey in the apparent times involved? We cannot just discount all witnesses as to timings of appearance, lights etc. I am glad you find it easy. I don't.

The obvious hoaxes confuse the issue unfortunately. Being able to separate the possible 'reals' from them would help clarity of evidential assessment.

Thank for your responses, they are helpful.

Originally posted by JS357
The questions you are asking are valid, but to conclude from a lack of established naturalistic earthly explanations that an extraterrestrial (ET) hypothesis is somehow made more respectable or as respectable, is a form of fallacy of ad ignoriantam. I am not saying that you have done this, but sometimes words can be interpreted that way or peoples intentions a ...[text shortened]... rm of ET, to be scientifically investigated and treated as inhabitants of the natural world.

I am open to non known processes and origins, but feel a need to halt imaginal processes being taken too far. I will hang around available evidence or what looks like evidence. I haven't encountered any Youtube vids on angel sightings thus far.
Interpretations are many, evidences have to be searched for and examined closely.

I say no more on this craziness of mine. One day the ET's will reveal fully! 🙄

Originally posted by Taoman
Ok, I am relying on sites that in my opinion look credible. But even if I (or you - have you visited one?) went to a site or three we must finally rely on inductive reasoning which is probablistic , not deductive proof. So, one way or the other my (or our) few findings will effect the probabilities minimally either way, in view of the large number of global i ...[text shortened]... would help clarity of evidential assessment.

Thank for your responses, they are helpful.

More often than not in cases like this ie. alleged paranormal activities, people just don't want to believe. Fiction is a lot more exciting than fact, i mean who wants to believe that crop circles are made by artists in the dead of night, or sometimes in the dead of a few nights, when you can lay the cause at the 'paranormal' or 'aliens' or something 'inter-dimensional'. That sounds a lot more sexier if i'm honest.

Case in point from this blog -

http://cropcirclewisdom.com/

(You'll like this site, the guy who writes it started off as an absolute believer that crop circles were not man-made and set off to find out more. His investigations have turned him 'full circle' (pun intended), he knows they are all man made, and the people who make them, but still has a little nod to the supernatural mixed in there.)

Here it is -

http://cropcirclewisdom.com/1/post/2012/07/jugglers-lane-nr-yatesbury-wiltshire-reported-17th-july-2012.html

Originally posted by Taoman
Those making the extraordinary claims must provide extraordinary evidence, however.

This for me is a biggie.
For example, if someone says "there were less tracks than expected should the crop circle be of human origin", then I would expect more than mere estimates by some unqualified anonymous person on the internet. I do not know how many tracks to expect. Does the person making the claim? Its an extraordinary claim so he has to back it up with more than what appears to be speculation. He has to show that:
1. He has accurately estimated how many tracks are expected if the crop circle was man made.
2. That known man made crop circles do show the number of tracks within the expected range and not below the minimum suggested in 1.
3. That he has ruled out the possibility that the makers of the crop circle covered their tracks - this one I think would be practically impossible as there are many many ways to cover your tracks - but at least I would expect some attempt at ruling out the obvious.

It is a holistic view, the coherence (or not) of the whole apparent account, not just focus on one aspect alone, that provide a probability summation for me thus far.
I think a large part of the reason we come to different conclusions is how we estimate the likelihood of aliens arriving at earth plus the likelihood of them creating crop circles. I place the likelihood so low that extraordinary human feats or even government conspiracies remain a more reasonable explanation in my book. Even if some secret organization has a satellite that creates them using a laser beam it remains a more sensible explanation than aliens coming many light years across the galaxy just to do doodles in the grass.
Clearly you discount human ingenuity more than I do, and have a much higher estimation of alien technology and odd psychology.

Your comments regarding 'inter-dimensional beings' I presume simply means 'of unknown but really really strange origin'. Or does 'inter-dimensional' really mean more to you than 'really weird phenomena'?

Originally posted by RJHinds
An interesting idea you have there, but I been thinking on it for about 20 minutes now and I can't think of any crazy beliefs I have. I guess I'm just a normal everyddy average guy.

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!

I vote this for the craziest belief.