Ouija board etc

kylith

I used a ouija board once in primary school, and got well freaked out because, out of nowhere, someone called my name. Thinking back though, the fact that my house was around the corner from the school and I was late home because I was mucking about with a ouija board, hearing someone call me probably wasn't that paranormal.

Some years later my cousin tried to convince me that they were 'totally real' because she'd used one and the glass had moved by itself and 'everyone swore they didn't move it'. I remember thinking that she was obviously an idiot, being a rather cynical youth.

I played with the Ouija board about eight years ago when I was fifteen or so. Over the course of about two weeks, myself and two friends went to various abandoned, eerie places, during the height of winter, with a home made board: we went to an abandoned convent, to a five hundred year old ruin of an abbey, at midnight, with thick fog all around, and to a supposedly haunted house. Over the two weeks we must have gone almost every evening, so we'd plenty of time with the board.

Nothing happened the first time we tried. The glass (a small shot glass) wouldn't move however much we willed it, so we gave up. But, on the second night, and all nights following that, something strange happened. The glass began to move, and with some speed. It could traverse the two foot wide board in a little over a second. We met an individual named Roberta, who told us she'd died in a well known fire at our local castle a few hundred years ago. She worked in the castle gardens, apparently. We got to know her better and better: she was funny, quite knowledgeable, witty, and, for the first week or so of encounters, pleasent to talk to.

After we'd gotten to know her fairly well, after about five or six "sessions", she began to become more and more sinister. For example, I once asked what was the name of the woman I'd marry. She gave her own name. She told me she'd make sure we'd meet in the not-so-distant future. If asked if she was joking she'd often reply "yes", then immediately go to "no", back to "yes", then to "no", repeating this movement indefinitely--until we removed our fingers from the glass. Another time she spelt death, repeating the word over and over: d-e-a-t-h-d-e-a-t-h, etc. We told her to feck off, and she did. She wouldn't return that night, or the next. We were left with a "broken" board (she returned two nights from then, though, even more sinister than when she left).

I've always been very sceptical. I didn't believe in the Ouija board before I played, and don't believe in it now. But, when you're a fifteen year old, in a dark, eerie abbey, with thick fog all around on a still winter's night, you tend to lose your ability to think rationally. All cracks and bangs and noises become portents of an evil spirit's incoming wrath, even if you don't believe in such a thing.

While playing with the board over those two weeks I did my best to suppress any emotional response which might cloud my ability to reason about what it is that's actually occuring. I devised some simple tests to test what kind of abilities Roberta had. For example, if the three of us were touching the glass, and one of us thought of a 6 or 10 or 20 digit number, Roberta could give us that number without any hassle. But, if somebody thought of a number who wasn't touching the glass, the test failed. Likewise, I was the only person who knew about the history of our local castle, so when we questioned her while I was touching the glass it appeared as if she was giving us facts. When I removed my hand and asked similar questions, she just spoke nonsense.

I have to say it was absolutely fascinating. At the time I knew nothing of the ideomotor effect. I remember spending hours postulating how our subconscious or unconscious thoughts could control our actions without our conscious knowledge, and how the collective subconsious of the group playing could delegate movement, so that in some instances my subconsious had control (when it was a question I knew the answer to), or another subconsious took control, when that individual had the answer to a question, and mine became subservient to it for the duration of that answer. I loved how, as time passed, the "spirit" became more and more deviant and sinister and foreboding, and how this related to our own minds: our own minds were trying to scare us. Our subconscious or unconscious mind(s) became adament it would spook our conscious minds, sometimes in quite a horrible way.

I'd highly recommend that everybody try it. There are no ghosts or spirits or anything of the sort. You won't be haunted or harmed. But, what you will gain, is an insight into the workings of both your own inner mind, and the collective inner mind of the group you're playing with. When you see your own unconsious mind out to get you you'll gain a new respect for it.

Sycopat

I'm sorry sponsored walk, I must have imagined you asking what constitutes evidence for the existence of a deity.

Oh wait:

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

What constitutes evidence for the existence of a deity?

Let me guess, you meant that rhetorically, after all I'd have to think you're an idiot to think you were asking the questions you actually wrote and not the obvious super-derp and cool question you want me to assume you asked.

You ever considered maybe I just don't think you're very bright?

Also, how are my assumptions unjustifiable? Thats a strong claim and as most of the ones you've disagreed with are based on scientific observation of the universe around us by minds much greater than mine, you're going to have to do a bit more work than just dismissing them out of hand every time I make a point just because you don't like it.

Also:

So every time above I've mentioned "Spot the unjustifiable assumptions..." you seriously think you've demonstrated even a morsel of reasoning?

Yes, I do. And other than to accuse me of the contrary, you have never demonstrated or given an argument as to why you disagree. You've just claimed it's obvious.

Also also: You mentioned one god at the beginning of the post you refer to. A god which gave contradictory evidence. That seems to be about as close as you've come to defining a deity. If a deity provided contradictory evidence, it would be rational to either believe in it's existence or not believe in it's existence because there would be evidence supporting both. However, whether you believed or not, you'd pretty much have to admit such a god would be a bit of an asshole for being such a deliberate prick about it.

Turtwig

Topics like this scare because I really badly want to reply yet I'm not happy with any reply I draft.

Sycopat wrote: »

You ever considered maybe I just don't think you're very bright?

Also, how are my assumptions unjustifiable? Thats a strong claim and as most of the ones you've disagreed with are based on scientific observation of the universe around us by minds much greater than mine, you're going to have to do a bit more work than just dismissing them out of hand every time I make a point just because you don't like it.

I genuinely lolled at this. I've no doubt that in a few years time, if he doesn't become one, Sponsored will at least understand the observations and theories of those great minds. Minds, you admitted are greater than yours. So, uh yeah, actually, he is very bright.

Northclare

Some of ye are obsessed with Deities,can ye not stick to the OP with out bringing deities in no

robindch

Sycopat wrote: »

[...] I'd have to think you're an idiot [...] obvious super-derp [...] maybe I just don't think you're very bright?

Sycopat - a bit less of the ad-hominem ranting, please.

Dades

Northclare wrote: »

Some of ye are obsessed with Deities,can ye not stick to the OP with out bringing deities in no

The problem arose here.

The Ouija board thing was petering out, and then someone was wrong on the Internet.

Sycopat

robindch wrote: »

Sycopat - a bit less of the ad-hominem ranting, please.

Sure thing, I was merely attempting to parody an earlier passage by sponsoredwalk. Specifically:

you'd really have to wonder how I'd have the mental capabilities to get on the internet if I said something like that with a straight face. I mean really, what kind of person would make that argument? Putting aside the fact you'd think I'd make such a ridiculous argument, if you were following anything I was saying you'd see that this was the very last thing I could be saying... My entire argument is that the very concepts of logic & rationality have no justifiable reason for even applying to this discussion

If any offence was caused I apologise, and I will refrain from such in future.:)

Edit to avoid double posting:

Northclare wrote: »

Some of ye are obsessed with Deities,can ye not stick to the OP with out bringing deities in no

On topic, I never tried a Ouija board, but I love horror films and games. I never found the idea of a ouija board scary. Other things have freaked me out since, and I enjoy the emotional response of fear.

I've recently been reading through some of the stuff at http://www.scp-wiki.net/

Some of that is quality.

robindch

Sycopat wrote: »

If any offence was caused I apologise, and I will refrain from such in future.:)

No worries -- pray, continue!

Sycopat

Jernal wrote: »

Minds, you admitted are greater than yours

Eh, not like I have a choice. Apparently I can't explain why her/his ability to imagine hypotheticals does not give him/her license to reject logic and reason, nor that while absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, the absence of evidence does prevent rationally assuming the presence of something.:(

And when you don't assume the presence of a deity you are an atheist. (Given the forum I think this last statement is superfluous, but the thought feels incomplete without it.)