Can we have a proper 'woo' topic?

[IndigoBarbie]

Dear MNHQ, I fully believe in freedom of speech and experiences, and as such I go out of my way to assist those who are asking more angelic/psychic etc questions, since this is my real life in a nutshell. Getting sooooo fed up of threads becoming all about others who don't believe and blatantly attacking those of us on thread who want to actively discuss and share and I think a lovely new topic of 'woo' or something you feel is an appropriate title could be provided for us to have proper sharings and discussions.

milk you've actually just proved my point!
Look at the wording.

Preferably without insults and name calling

^^^^ this

Never seen the science and nature topic, looks right up my alley

Milk that last quote does rather prove Softly's point, it was a factual comment about how people can't talk about the woo without others stamping all over it. Because that is actually true. It happens everytime...

LtEve That's a pretty extreme example, do you honestly thing that our own topic will be filled with shit like that? and if it did crop up that it would go unchallenged?

No gamerchick, I don't - but I don't think even ONE instance would be acceptable.

I'm very open minded - Gypsy stock you see, so grew up "knowing" that Granny could predict hatches, matches and dispatches, have had some 'woo' moments myself, but I'm not a believer. I don't diss people that are, but I think it is very dangerous in the 'wrong' hands.

Trouble is that some people's idea of 'stamping all over it' is merely disagreeing with them. So if I say that feather you found came from a moulting seagull,and not from an angel,then some might say that I'm being rude and dismissive.

I was called rude and dismissive on the feather thread because I suggested that someone's child might have an imaginary friend rather than be seeing angels, and that white feathers are everywhere because of soft furnishings, down coats and seagulls. I was calm and polite - but even the suggestion of questioning is dismissive and trampling on others beliefs. It makes discussion impossible.

Hak I didn't call you rude or dismissive, but you did attack me directly by stating things about me that were not true, and saying things that I had not said....I have never attacked another Mner online. Just sayin.......

Therfore, yes. As you said - discussion is impossible - especially when I am speaking my truth.

especially when I am speaking my truth

..and your truth includes helping MNers with missing children to find them does it?

I don't think it's the case that dissenting voices are unwelcome. There have been some very interesting threads involving believers and non believers leading.

These tend to be the one's where no one tries to ridicule anyone else. They are honest Adult to Adult exchanges. The problem comes when posters pretend they are engaging in an Adult to Adult conversation, but have really switched to a Critical Parent position which ultimately leads to the end of the discussion.

"
Hak I didn't call you rude or dismissive, but you did attack me directly by stating things about me that were not true, and saying things that I had not said....I have never attacked another Mner online. Just sayin......."

So you didn't say-
"In the past on mn their have been some missing people and children, therefore I put my skills to good use to assist in locating them"?

I'm not sure what I think on a lot of these issues. I like to think I'm fairly open-minded and have no particular axe to grind so am always happy to hear both sides of the discussion but there is a difference between open, honest, adult debate even when it becomes heated and what happens on these threads. This thread is a very good example of it because some people seem to want to close discussion down and are adamant that they have all the answers and so nobody has any right to voice or discuss any alternative.

Just look at some of the statements on this thread regarding complementary therapies used for thousand of years and highly regarded by many (including medical practitioners):
"used for many centuries by many people" doesn't mean anything except many people are gullible How patronising!

it can't work because it's theory makes no sense... It's not a question of "I believe this, you believe that, let's be respectful of each other's beliefs" etc Really? Just because something doesn't make sense to me doesn't mean I couldn't respect the choice made by somebody that thought differently. I might disagree with that choice but they are entitled to their own opinion

And on respecting others' beliefs:
Jesus didn't exist. Ghosts don't exist. I can provide hard evidence for these statements; they're not 'faith' or 'beliefs'

I must stress I am not fixed on one side or other of this debate. I do not think it should be a protected topic and share some of the concerns voiced by maryz and LtEve but it is the fact that discussion is not being allowed that is the problem imo. I hate bullying behaviours and this constant stamping on the thoughts of anyone who dares anything other than the opinions of a particular group is very unpleasant

Well said, Scousadelic.

Scousadelic. I understand your point of view. I respect your right to have a point of view, and to express it. I can't respect a belief which is factually untrue. Your quote from me (Jesus and ghosts) is a factual statement, not an opinion.

I respect that belief in Jesus - or even ghosts - helps a lot of people living their lives. My 'imaginary helpers' and meditation do the same for me. The difference is that 'woo' people believe those things as material facts - objective truths - when they've been proven not to be.

If I were sure there's really a cloud of multi-coloured beings flying around me at all times, you'd rightly fear I suffered some sort of delusional malady! If researchers put centuries of investigation, and billions of dollars, into establishing whether my helpers exist or not - and couldn't find any evidence of them - wouldn't you present this to me as reason to see a psychologist, as they clearly aren't real?

What I dislike about 'unbelievers' is the same few that pop up on every thread with aggressive, derisive comments which are personal - either thinly veiled accusations that the poster has mental health problems, or explicit suggestions that they do. Accusations of unfit parenting if you believe in spirituality. All of which have been directed at me.

I think that this is not on. It's fine to say 'oh well I think it's just bird feathers' but there are some people who take delight in being rude and personal - perhaps because they have had damaging experiences with religion in the past, who knows? But I do think those people need to ask themselves why they are so insecure about other people having belief in anything they can't accept themselves.

All that said, having a woo topic will likely change nothing I suspect...

Garlic, what "hard evidence" can you provide for the non existence of Jesus and ghosts? Can one provide any evidence for the non existence of anything?

You can't absolutely prove any non-existence, Dione ... there's no absolute proof of anything at all, if we want to be absolute! But, of course, centuries of dedicated & informed research have gone into proving Jesus and ghosts. No proof has ever been found. In the particular case of Jesus, there is obviously strong motive and limitless funds available to those seeking hard evidence. There is none: in a society obsessed with record-keeping (both Romans and Jews) not a single record exists. There was no settlement named Nazareth before his supposed death. If there had been either record or relic, they would have been found!

... this isn't to say there wasn't such a person; there were loads of them, touring the land, preaching tolerance in an extremely harsh & intolerant civilisation. They had followers. Eventually their doctrine took hold, and the rest is history. Jesus himself isn't history, though, he's mythology.

I can and do provide evidence that homeopathy doesn't work. But people continue to believe that it does.

There seem to be a suggestion that you shouldn't be allowed to discuss anything you can't prove.

How about "Tales of the Unexplained"

It would make it clear it was for ghost stories etc. with no need for proof or discussions of whether it was real or not...

How about "Tales of the Unexplained"

[like] :)

You aren't very good at this GarlicJuneBlooms. Ghosts and Jesus are not of the same category.

In terms of the historicity of the Bible, some of it is well-documented, other parts are allegorical. In terms of Jesus, whether or not he existed is not particularly important, because if you concede that he did exist, but that he was not in any way supernatural, which is a common position from historians (certainly more common than saying that he didn't exist at all), then that is sufficient. Richard Dawkins (who is very anti-theist), for example, argues this, he says that you employ logic and say that since the supernatural doesn't exist, then the supernatural claims made by the Bible are all fabricated. It's Occam's Razor. It's for instance rather foolish to claim that the lack of pre-Christian evidence for a city named Nazareth means that it did not exist. Even if you hold that a man called Jesus never existed (although certainly MANY men by that name did), suggesting that they fabricated the existence of an entire town stretches credulity.

In terms of proving the existence of ghosts we would look at evidence in the here and now, and we can repeatedly do so, where people claim ghosts are present, this is nothing like proving what didn't happe 2000 years ago.

I'm sorry, but lack of evidence to the contrary does not equal hard evidence for your position Garlic, so you are guilty of the same thing that you accuse others of: misrepresenting belief as fact.

Lottie the thing about believers is they are just barefaced lying to people, telling them something is true when it's not.

So of course people will be snippy and possibly aggressive, you are telling untruths.

True, Aga, I'm not very good at this ... and don't care an awful lot!