Debate:Things we may or may not believe in

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Fucked up J's siggy somehow.)
(Judeo/Christian (not the same as Islamic, which is a lie some people tell themselves))
Line 66: Line 66:
 
:::There's no need to take that attitude. If Christians believe that Jesus was God incarnate, and Muslims believe that he was a non-divine prophet, those two beliefs are mutually exclusive. It's fine if you want to say something like "there is only one true God, and the three Abrahamic faiths have imperfect understandings of him", because then the contradiction can be reconciled. But ''God'' as defined by Christianity is not the same as ''God'' defined by Islam. [[User:Johann|Johann]] 17:19, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
 
:::There's no need to take that attitude. If Christians believe that Jesus was God incarnate, and Muslims believe that he was a non-divine prophet, those two beliefs are mutually exclusive. It's fine if you want to say something like "there is only one true God, and the three Abrahamic faiths have imperfect understandings of him", because then the contradiction can be reconciled. But ''God'' as defined by Christianity is not the same as ''God'' defined by Islam. [[User:Johann|Johann]] 17:19, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
 
:::I'm sorry about the attitude-really. But that's so far from "right" it isn't even wrong--and there are important political/racial concepts at stake here. Christians who go around trying to rationalise the historically false belief that "God" and "Allah" aren't the same deity make it even easier to justify the marginalisation of Muslims/Arabs from the realm of what they consider to be the "civilised world""--a world that has the Judeo-Christian belief system at its heart. Christians, in the eyes of Islam, have, because of their notion that Jesus was divine, a corrupted understanding of God. But at the end of the day, IT'S THE SAME GOD. You and CPAdmin can keep lying about that fact, but it won't make you any closer to correct. [[User:PFoster|PFoster]] 17:25, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
 
:::I'm sorry about the attitude-really. But that's so far from "right" it isn't even wrong--and there are important political/racial concepts at stake here. Christians who go around trying to rationalise the historically false belief that "God" and "Allah" aren't the same deity make it even easier to justify the marginalisation of Muslims/Arabs from the realm of what they consider to be the "civilised world""--a world that has the Judeo-Christian belief system at its heart. Christians, in the eyes of Islam, have, because of their notion that Jesus was divine, a corrupted understanding of God. But at the end of the day, IT'S THE SAME GOD. You and CPAdmin can keep lying about that fact, but it won't make you any closer to correct. [[User:PFoster|PFoster]] 17:25, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
 +
:::: I am not '''lying''' about anything. I may well be mistaken; it is quite possible that somebody will show me the error in what I said, and I will be glad to be corrected. But I am not lying, and I have no personal religious stake in the matter. I am unaffiliated with either religion. If what I wrote above is wrong, please point it out. Don't just assert it to be true.
 +
 +
How is it that, if a Christian defines their God as having attribute X but not Y, and a Muslim defines their God as having attribute Y but not X, that they can be said to believe in the same God?  And no personal attacks this time, please. [[User:Johann|Johann]] 17:33, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
  
 
===FSM and IPU===
 
===FSM and IPU===

Revision as of 21:33, 21 September 2008

What do you believe in? Sign your name below anything you have a positive belief in. Feel free to add more (phrenology, alchemy, scientology, what have you), but try to keep snark to a minimum, I'm actually curious about this. DickTurpis 00:41, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

This needs splitting off into its own page, like that liberal beliefs one a few weeks back. Totnesmartin 14:55, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

I agree. What does it have to do with CP?--Bobbing up 11:54, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

It kind of went off at a tangent from the previous (now archived) thread. Totnesmartin 12:01, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Note for the committed sceptics: There is a "None of the above" option towards the bottom which could save you some time.

Contents

God (Judeo/Christian/Islamic)

  1. noSusanG  ContribsTalk
  2. Unsure (leaning towards No) SirChuckBDMorris for new Jinx! 01:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  3. No --PsyGremlinWhut? 04:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  4. No Totnesmartin
  5. No 86.152.83.126 05:32, 20 September 2008 (EDT) Matt oblong 05:34, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  6. No Lardashe
  7. Yes, but I'm not a fundy, I swear. --Wren 08:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  8. No.--Johann 09:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  9. Yes I think they're all the same Kettle o' fish 10:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)`
  10. No --SpinyNorman 12:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  11. Yes -- And they are the same, Muslims believe in the God of Abraham, the same as "The Father" for Christians. Stile4aly 13:26, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  12. No. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.
  13. Yes, I do believe there is a God (but I don't let it melt my brain!) ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ wasn't me!
  14. No. Timppeli 22:53, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  15. No. Of course not.--Bobbing up 11:56, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
  16. No. --Purple George!YossieSpring in Fialta 12:29, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
  17. no 71.30.144.158 13:15, 21 September 2008 (EDT) - Carptrash 13:19, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Judeo/Christian (not the same as Islamic, which is a lie some people tell themselves)

  1. Yes --CPAdmin1 09:36, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  2. No --Kels 09:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  3. No --SpinyNorman 12:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  4. No, no, no. That's for the trinity - and just who decided to make a splinter group for this? Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.
  5. No, of course not.--Bobbing up 11:56, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
  6. No. Cause I don't think it's a lie. --Wren 15:30, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Sorry, I worded that in a funny way. I meant "not the same as Islamic" is a falsehood, not the other way around. --Kels 16:08, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

just who decided to make a splinter group for this? Someone who knows little about the very religion he claims to practice. PFoster 13:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

I knew that. The question was a rhetorical put down. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 14:06, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
I knew that. I was just piling on the fact that it's an incredibly stupid thing to do.PFoster 15:07, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
And what makes you think that I know very little about about the religion I claim to practice? Just because Muslim and Christian beliefs both include Abraham does not make the religions have the same God. --CPAdmin1 20:15, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
Hell of a coincidence don't you think that the cast of characters (Abraham right throught to the angel Gabriel and Jesus himself) is the same in both religions. Also odd that Mohammad believed that he was perfecting and finalizing the word of God that had occurred in the Old Testaments followed by the Jews and the new Testament followed by the Christians. If their prophet says it's the same god as yours then it is.--DamoHi 21:18, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
Jesus, I thought CPAdmin1 was one of the reasonable Conservapedians. Turns out not so much. Deal with it boy-tomorrow when you get on your knees at church, you'll be prayin' to ALLAH, too. Any religious scholar who isn't ideologically blind/have her head stuck up her ass/a complete moron would tell you. PFoster 21:29, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
I believe that the Bible is the word of God, and Jesus Christ is the only Way. The Islamic God is not the same. He does not match the God of the Bible at all. Just because some of the stories are the same does not make them the same God. Only one exists anyway. If you want to start talking about rational positions you have to be fair. You don't believe that one religion is true, and another is false. To you there isn't really a difference. The Idea of God is probably irrational from your point of view. Therefore, if some of the stories line up, and some of the characters are same, then it is the same. Now try looking from my point of view. There is a God. One God, not many. There is one religion that is true (Christianity) and all others are not. If you start from there, it is perfectly rational to conclude that the Islamic God is not the same. --CPAdmin1 22:11, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
The Muslims are worshipping the same god as you, and you as they, full stop. I'm right and you're wrong and there's no point in discussing it further. I'm more intrigued by why you're so eager to obscure that fact but not so eager to obscure the fact that it is also the same god that the Jews worship(you did write "Judeo/Christian (not the same as Islamic))--even when the Muslims make a place for your Christ figure in their cosmogony while the Jews don't.PFoster 22:16, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
Mmm, I dunno PFoster...Muslims accept neither the Trinity nor the divinity of Jesus, both of which are kind of important in the (mainstream) Christian concept of God. I wouldn't call the God of Christianity the same as the God of Islam, nor would I equate it with the God of Judaism. That said, I don't see why a separate category is really necessary, since it seems obvious to me that the intent of the original category was to poll belief in any of the three Abrahamic faiths.--Bayes 22:29, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
CPAdmin's position is at best ignorant and at worst islamophobic. It's not just that some of the stories overlap, its that the prophet Mohammed believed that he was talking to the Christian/Jewish God. Therefore, the religion he founded uses the same God as the Christian God. Forget it CPAdmin please, for the sake of your own credibility.--DamoHi 22:34, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
What Damo said.PFoster 22:41, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
I will concede the Idea that muslims believe that they are worshiping the same God. This however does not make it the same. God is not based on Abraham. Apart from Jesus Christ, no one can come to God. Sorry if I offend you. --CPAdmin1 23:09, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
Null set = null set. Case closed. (IMHO). ħumanUser talk:Human 03:29, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Good on you. No I am not easily offended. Remember that I am not saying that the religions are the same, merely that they both have at their head belief in the god that spoke to Abraham and led the Jews out of Egypt. Do you subscribe to the epilepsy theory of Mohammed's visions, or that he just made the whole thing up?--DamoHi 23:33, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

(undent) I am not denying the fact that both Christianity and Islam believe in a God that spoke to Abraham etc. What I am saying is that that does not make it the same God. The nature of the God of Christianity, and the nature of the God of Islam are extremely at odds to each other, and that is far more important of a point than the fact that both religions point back to Abraham. I believe that Islam is false. It doesn't make a difference to me how Mohammed came up with the Idea. The fact that the story of Abraham already existed explains the fact that it is included in Islam. Much easier to borrow a story from someone else than to make up your own. --CPAdmin1 23:57, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

So you're saying that two Gods spoke to Abraham then? (Which one did he listen to then, to lead the people out of Egypt?) And if you read the Old Testament, which most Christians seem to conveniently ignore, there is very little difference between God and Allah. Both carried a long whip and had a short temper. And why are Christians closer to the Jewish faith which rejects the idea of Jesus as the messiah, whereas Islam at least sees him as a prophet? Maybe you'd care to explain why the God of the Old Testament is so different to that of the New Testament - after all, there's not a single smite in the NT. Could it be... a third God? --PsyGremlinWhut? 01:25, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
This exemplifies the whole wackiness of organised religion. It's obvious to anyone with an inkling of religious history that it's the same god in all three faiths. It's just mankind's different interpretation of him and how to respond which is at issue. And while the faiths might demarcate the big differences, the nature of God is different even across Christianity. So expressly excluding Allah is Islamophobic. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 03:23, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Psy- interestingly, the idea that there is the old, mean God and the new, nice God was one of the competing (but obviously unsuccessful) early Christian ideologies. And there was a smiting in the NT- Acts 4:32-5:10. CorryI think hallucinations are a side effect of Teamocil. 10:51, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Ah yes, thanks for that Corry. --PsyGremlinWhut? 12:51, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
CPAdmin, the problem with your argument is that there is at least as much difference between the Jewish and the Christian perception of God as there is between either and the Muslim perception. In Christianity, this difference is usually explained through the idea of the New Covenant which changes the relationship between God and Man. However, the problem here is that the Muslims believe in essentially the same thing, namely that the Qur'an established a new, third pact between God and Man because the earlier ones had been misinterpreted.
Of course, you're entirely free to disagree as much as you like with the nature of the Muslim covenant. But it's pretty bad theology to claim that on the one hand, the Christian redefinition of the covenant is valid, but that on the other hand, the completely equivalent Muslim redefinition is not. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 10:21, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
  1. No. Timppeli 22:53, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
I'm amazed that there was such disagreement over this point. Christians believe in a God who was incarnated as Jesus. Muslims believe in a God who was not. Therefore, Muslims and Christians do not believe in the same god. And similarly for all the other mutually exclusive doctrines. --Johann 17:02, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
And I can't believe they let you out of the house on your own. Christians believe that God came back to Earth as Christ. Muslims believe that Christ was a prophet of that same god, but was not divine. PFoster 17:11, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
There's no need to take that attitude. If Christians believe that Jesus was God incarnate, and Muslims believe that he was a non-divine prophet, those two beliefs are mutually exclusive. It's fine if you want to say something like "there is only one true God, and the three Abrahamic faiths have imperfect understandings of him", because then the contradiction can be reconciled. But God as defined by Christianity is not the same as God defined by Islam. Johann 17:19, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
I'm sorry about the attitude-really. But that's so far from "right" it isn't even wrong--and there are important political/racial concepts at stake here. Christians who go around trying to rationalise the historically false belief that "God" and "Allah" aren't the same deity make it even easier to justify the marginalisation of Muslims/Arabs from the realm of what they consider to be the "civilised world""--a world that has the Judeo-Christian belief system at its heart. Christians, in the eyes of Islam, have, because of their notion that Jesus was divine, a corrupted understanding of God. But at the end of the day, IT'S THE SAME GOD. You and CPAdmin can keep lying about that fact, but it won't make you any closer to correct. PFoster 17:25, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
I am not lying about anything. I may well be mistaken; it is quite possible that somebody will show me the error in what I said, and I will be glad to be corrected. But I am not lying, and I have no personal religious stake in the matter. I am unaffiliated with either religion. If what I wrote above is wrong, please point it out. Don't just assert it to be true.

How is it that, if a Christian defines their God as having attribute X but not Y, and a Muslim defines their God as having attribute Y but not X, that they can be said to believe in the same God? And no personal attacks this time, please. Johann 17:33, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

FSM and IPU

Following on from the above: Is the Flying Spaghetti Monster really the same god as the Invisible Pink Unicorn? They obviously have many things in common - but are they the same being?--Bobbing up 17:05, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

God (other)

  1. Yes. Please vote. I'm awfully lonely in this cold, depopulated poll :(New3.pngPink(Astronomy Domine) 00:46, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  2. noSusanG  ContribsTalk
  3. Same as above SirChuckBDMorris for new Jinx! 01:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  4. Only at times when I think things like "If there was a Big Bang, where did that 1 proton come from?" and "What was before the big bang?". It helps to think that before "nothing" became "everything", there was Bob (or the Great Green Arklseizure or something). It can be neatly plastered over the bits science can't answer yet. --PsyGremlinWhut? 04:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  5. Well, believing doesn't hurt. I'm in! Etc 04:50, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  6. Yes. Totnesmartin 05:10, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  7. No - not the old sky-daddy kind. Matt oblong 05:35, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  8. No Lardashe
  9. No --Wren 08:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  10. First define this non-Judeo/Christian "god". After that, no. --Johann 09:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  11. Kinda, more in a "personalization of natural forces" sort of way, but knowing they're not actual people. --Kels 09:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  12. I strongly doubt it, but can't claim to know that as a fact. --SpinyNorman 12:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  13. Maybe if someone named their child "God", but they wouldn't have any significant powers. Kettle o' fish 13:31, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  14. Only Robbie Fowler in his prime. All others are false. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.
  15. Maybe. -- Refugee 20:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  16. No. Timppeli 22:53, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  17. No. My word, so many versions of God not to believe in.--Bobbing up 11:58, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
  18. yes - tho it would take many words (perhaps more than there are) to describe/invent her/him/it. 71.30.144.158 13:17, 21 September 2008 (EDT) - Carptrash 13:20, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Ghosts

  1. I reckon that ghosts can be explained by electromagnetic activity. Our brains run on electricity, the earth itsself has an electromagnetic field. When someone dies a vicious death, their brain is working overtime, neurons are firing and the whole brain is active. That leaves an imprint on the electromagnetic field of the earth. Then, when the field is charged (say during a lighting storm - explaining the cliche of ghosts appearing during a stormy night) the imprint is revealed. Also, pyschics cant communicate with the dead but they are more intune with the electric feild than others may be. I am just saying...Ace McWicked55.3 million page views! 00:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
    You are kidding, right? Please?--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 02:23, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
    I never kid, I am just not that funny. Ace McWicked55.3 million page views! 07:07, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  2. noSusanG  ContribsTalk
  3. Slight possiblity SirChuckBDMorris for new Jinx! 01:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  4. I don't, but I'm not willing to write them off just yet either. --PsyGremlinWhut? 04:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  5. Yes, but not as some remnant of what keeps us alive - more like a recording onto the surroundings. Totnesmartin 05:12, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  6. No - Someone would have got a convincing picture by now. Matt oblong 05:36, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  7. No Lardashe
  8. Unsure, leaning towards yes. --Wren 08:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  9. No. I don't believe we have non-corporeal parts which can linger after death.--Johann 09:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  10. Doubt it, but I dunno for sure. --Kels 09:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  11. Yes, in the sense of spirits. Not to haunt people, unless they [the spirits of dead people] become demons. Kettle o' fish 10:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  12. I think there are phenomena beyond our five senses' ability to directly perceive (if we were born deaf does that mean sounds don't exist around us anyway? I think "Ghosts" are one description of a phenomena we describe in human terms because we don't understand it well enough yet. --SpinyNorman 13:02, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  13. Only in the sense that human eyes and ears are easily tricked. But there are no real ghosts. Stile4aly 13:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  14. The only spirits worth believing in are distilled. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.
  15. No. New3.pngPink(Astronomy Domine) 13:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  16. No. Timppeli 22:53, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  17. No. Can this be serious?--Bobbing up 11:59, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
  18. yes. Seriously. People are all energy and vibration and stuff. Which can not (according to some) be created or destroyed. So . . .What happens to it all when we die? Carptrash 13:22, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Energy can not be created/destroyed (in the classical sense) but it can change forms. Our "consciousness" is not rooted in the fact that we are made up of "energy" but rather the very specific arrangement of that energy into very specific matter with very specific orientations and physical structures. In turn there is a very specific connective structure to these physical structures, and out of all that and many other layers of complexity the "I" emerges. When all that "energy" is converted from the interconnected mass of our body into chemical and heat energy we don't become "ghosts" because there is nothing left to form consciousness. tmtoulouse torment 13:31, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Astrology

  1. noSusanG  ContribsTalk
  2. No--PsyGremlinWhut? 04:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  3. No Totnesmartin
  4. No - And if it was true I don't believe the nut-balls-goat-spongers who pedal this crap are the least bit qualified to do it. Matt oblong 05:37, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  5. No Lardashe
  6. No, but it does make for good conversation when all else fails. --Wren 08:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  7. NO.
  8. Not really, makes good shorthand for talking about personality types, but not for predicting anything. --Kels 09:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  9. Not sure what this is, but I'm pretty sure I hate it. Anything I haven't tried, I instinctively hate. Kettle o' fish 10:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  10. My Magic 8-ball says "no" --SpinyNorman 13:04, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  11. Astrology is just superstition, but then again we Aries are skeptical. Stile4aly 13:28, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  12. No. The paperweight on my desk exerts a bigger influence on me than Jupiter. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.
  13. No. Astrology is a fig-leaf for natural intuition -- the method itself has no merit. New3.pngPink(Astronomy Domine) 13:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  14. Yes. Not the "astrology" that you find in the newpaper (today will be your good luck day, etc) not that type of thing, but personal characteristics based on allignment of planets, seasons, and so forth at the time of your birth, I believe there may be something to that. (I realize I'm the lone dissenter, don't all jump on me at once please, lol) --Refugee 21:03, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  15. No. Timppeli 22:53, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  16. No --CPAdmin1 23:10, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  17. No. More humour?--Bobbing up 12:00, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
  18. yes. If the moon, for example, can create 20 foot high tides (or what ever) it likely (opinion) will also effect us 90% (you do the math) water beings. Carptrash 13:23, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Ohhh, so the next time my girlfriend complains about bloating I can blame it on it just being hightide? tmtoulouse torment 13:27, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Numerology

  1. To some extent, yes, but only when it comes to my password. Kettle o' fish 10:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  2. Nope. --SpinyNorman 13:05, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  3. No. Even though my lucky number is 84309453. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.
  4. No. New3.pngPink(Astronomy Domine) 13:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  5. No. --Refugee 21:07, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  6. No. Timppeli 22:53, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  7. Only when it comes to 22. For obvious reasons... --Purple George!YossieSpring in Fialta 23:37, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  8. No, but it's fun to play with (and I thought it was 42?) --PsyGremlinWhut? 01:29, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Depends on who you read.--Purple George!YossieSpring in Fialta 03:05, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Don't you go pushing your liberal, atheist, baby-murdering POV here, you follower of 22. 42 is the one true number. --PsyGremlinWhut? 06:20, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
I won't even deign to respond to such an insubstantial, anti-22 edit. Godspeed. --Purple George!YossieSpring in Fialta 12:32, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
  1. Only inasfar as you can prove anything with statistics :) Totnesmartin 06:23, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
  2. No. these just keep getting funnier.--Bobbing up 12:01, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
  3. so-so, - a definite maybe, but surely all the scientists and math majors here can appreciate the power of numbers? Carptrash 13:25, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Bigfoot

  1. noSusanG  ContribsTalk
  2. No (ditto Loch Ness et al) --PsyGremlinWhut? 04:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  3. Probably not. Totnesmartin
  4. No. Lardashe
  5. No. --Wren 08:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  6. Not an impossibility. But I think we would have some better evidence for them if they were real. --Johann 09:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  7. I have a hard enough time buying shoes as it is! --Kels 09:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  8. I have small feet. So my answer is: sort of. I'm sure there's someone out there with just one big foot. Kettle o' fish 10:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  9. I don't discount the possibility of cryptids, after all living coelacanths were only discovered quite recently. However, for any particular specimen: show me the evidence first. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.
  10. No. New3.pngPink(Astronomy Domine) 13:46, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  11. No. --Refugee 21:08, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  12. I had a co-worker who came close, but no. --SpinyNorman 21:59, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  13. No. Timppeli 22:53, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  14. is size 15 big enough? --CPAdmin1 23:11, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  15. No, but I was really shocked when those hicks in Georgia turned out to be putting on a hoax! CorryI think hallucinations are a side effect of Teamocil. 10:45, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
  16. Could be. I believe that there is still a lot wandering around on this Earth that we do not know about. Carptrash 13:26, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Psychic powers

  1. noSusanG  ContribsTalk
  2. This one is complicated... Ask me on my user page if you're really interested, it'll take awhile to explain SirChuckBDMorris for new Jinx! 01:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  3. Not explicitly, but there do seem to be cases where people have 'some' kind of power. Like SirChuck said, this one is complicated. --PsyGremlinWhut? 04:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  4. Yes. Totnesmartin 05:15, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  5. No Lardashe
  6. Yes, but in far fewer people than claim to have them. --Wren 08:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  7. No. I'm with James Randi on this one. --Johann 09:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  8. Doubt it. Gimme some evidence and I'll change my mind, though. --Kels 09:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  9. Yes, if you count discernment. My mother has that power and can tell when people are guilty/lying. Kettle o' fish 10:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  10. Nothing more than conscious or unconscious observation. More Sherlock Holmes than Doris Stokes. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.
  11. Agree with Genghis. By no means a useless faculty, though. New3.pngPink(Astronomy Domine) 13:47, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  12. Yes, with reservations: A few people, to varying degrees. But never the "psychics" that advertise for money, those are fakes. Well, we don't know everything about the mind-body connection or ourselves yet, do we? --Refugee 21:10, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  13. See my answer for "Ghosts" --SpinyNorman 22:00, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  14. No. Timppeli 22:53, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  15. No. Farcical idea.--Bobbing up 12:02, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
  16. For sure - tho this does cover a lot of ground - much of which is swampy at best and quicksand at worst. Carptrash 13:28, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

The ability to communicate with the dead

  1. noSusanG  ContribsTalk
  2. No --PsyGremlinWhut? 04:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  3. No Totnesmartin 05:15, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  4. No Lardashe
  5. Yes, but only if they're ghosts tapping on the pipes or some such. And then anyone can do it... if the ghost is willing to tap morse code. 8^P --Wren 08:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  6. No. The dead cannot communicate: they're dead.--Johann 09:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  7. Nope. --Kels 09:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  8. Again, to some extent... but only really in dreams. If the spirits willingly contact you. XKettle o' fish 10:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  9. No, they're dead. We have enough difficulty communicating with the living. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.
  10. No. New3.pngPink(Astronomy Domine) 13:47, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  11. Same answer as for "Ghosts" --SpinyNorman 22:02, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  12. No. Timppeli 22:53, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  13. No. More mumbo jumbo.--Bobbing up 12:03, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
  14. Sure, if/when they want it. Happens all the time around here. Carptrash 13:29, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Atlantis

  1. noSusanG  ContribsTalk
  2. Yes, but it's under the wrong name. SirChuckBDMorris for new Jinx! 01:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  3. If SirChuck is referring to Crust Displacement, then I'm with him. It's not Atlantis, it's Antarctica. --PsyGremlinWhut? 04:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  4. Yes, but it's under the wrong sea. Etc 04:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  5. No Totnesmartin 05:16, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  6. No, but it'd be cool! Lardashe
  7. Possibly. Might be under Antarctica. --Wren 08:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  8. Not an impossibility, but likely to be mythical. --Johann 09:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  9. Yes, but just a regular island with people on it, probably somewhere else, as above. --Kels 09:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  10. Not on this planet, and not with people. Kettle o' fish 10:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  11. No. New3.pngPink(Astronomy Domine) 13:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  12. Who knows? If it was in Antarctica then any remains will have been glaciated away. It's a myth until we have evidence to the contrary. (Crustal displacement theory is interesting though.) Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.
  13. Nope. Probably a re-telling of a true but small-scale incident that grew into a legend over time, like Flood Myths. --SpinyNorman 22:04, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  14. No. Timppeli 22:53, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  15. Yes, but minus all the science fiction crap. I've heard a fairly good argument that Plato was simply referring to this, and got his numbers wrong because of Greco-Egyptian numerical confusion. --Purple George!YossieSpring in Fialta 23:33, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  16. No. I'm getting tired. Are there no sensible questions?--Bobbing up 12:04, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
  17. I believe that there might have been advanced civilizations that we know nothing about. A rose by any other name? Carptrash 13:30, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Faeries

  1. noSusanG  ContribsTalk
  2. No (and not even Conan-Doyle can convince me) --PsyGremlinWhut? 04:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  3. Sadly, the bottom of my garden contains mostly slugs. Totnesmartin 05:17, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  4. No Lardashe
  5. I Do Believe in Faries! I Do Believe in Faries! *Claps Hands.* --Wren 08:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  6. No. And Doreen Virtue, "PhD", makes my blood boil. --Johann 09:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  7. Nope. --Kels 09:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  8. The tooth faerie.. some fat guy with a hairy chest prancing around in your room stealing the virginity of your baby teeth? Nope. Lies! Kettle o' fish 10:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  9. No. New3.pngPink(Astronomy Domine) 13:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  10. Yes. I was in New Orleans during a Gay Pride parade. No. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.
  11. No. (Bought the damn book anyway when I was a teen, though)--SpinyNorman 22:06, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  12. No. Timppeli 22:53, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  13. No.--Bobbing up 12:05, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
  14. Yes, especially if you include nagas and other earth spirits and such. Carptrash 13:32, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Witches (not Wiccans)

  1. noSusanG  ContribsTalk
  2. I believe in the power of belief in witchcraft, which also has nothing to do with Wicca (strange distinction made in the heading, I think.) There are people who believe they are witches, or witchdoctors, or sangomas, or tonton macoute (sp?) and there are people who believe in the powers of those people and that is what gives them their power. make sense? --PsyGremlinWhut? 04:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  3. If you mean cackling old women flying around on broomsticks and turning people into frogs, then no. If you mean non-cackling old women making herbal remedies and potions which may or may not work, then yes, I've got some on my phone. Totnesmartin 05:21, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  4. No. Regardless of the existence of those who claim themselves witches, they hold no real power that would make them 'witches' Lardashe
  5. Um... no. --Wren 08:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  6. There are plenty of people claiming to be, but I don't believe that any of them have any magical powers, or that their spells and potions have any effect other than the placebo effect. --Johann 09:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  7. Nope. I've never seen anyone with enough power to hex a dandelion (mind you, dandelions are pretty tenacious buggers). --Kels 09:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  8. Salem Witch Trials. Modern day? Communists. Capitalism mutates into Communism.. umm, no I don't believe in spells. But Sabrina was rather cute. So was Paigefrom Charmed
    But, I'm pretty sure it says in the Bible somewhere about practicing witchcraft and satanic rituals. So, umm, magic might exist... uhh. I have to read more.. haha. Kettle o' fish 10:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  9. No. New3.pngPink(Astronomy Domine) 13:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  10. Nothing beyond the application of suggestion. Witchcraft is mainly in the minds of others. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.
  11. No. --SpinyNorman 22:06, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  12. No. Timppeli 22:53, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  13. This question is badly phrased. Do I believe there are people who call themselves witches? Of course. Do believe they are anything other than misguided loons? No.--Bobbing up 12:08, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
  14. yes. Witches, (in my universe) were/are mostly women who were plant people and healers and all and who were prosecuted and persecuted by the patriarchy (and people such as most of you - many not males) for their beliefs, abilities and actions. And more. Carptrash 13:35, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

UFOs

  1. If by this you mean "life from other planets that might conceivably have swung within eyeball distance of the Earth at some point in history" PFoster 00:49, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  2. noSusanG  ContribsTalk
  3. If you mean aliens, probably not. But there are many unidentified objects still awaiting explanation SirChuckBDMorris for new Jinx! 01:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  4. I find it hard to believe that given the size of this universe, we are alone, but I find it equally hard to believe that they would be so technologically far ahead of us. So, if the question is UFOs only, then no. --PsyGremlinWhut? 04:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  5. There is some kind of atmospheric phenomenon which science hasn't got round to explaining yet (and probably is shy of looking at because of all the crankery) - no evidence that it's aliens from Zeta Reticuli though. Totnesmartin 05:24, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  6. No - though in the strictest sense of the acronym, yes. In the sense of aliens visiting our planet, no. Lardashe
  7. Maybe. Call me if they land. --Wren 08:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  8. Once again, it's a possibility. But the manner in which they get reported is so similar to the reporting of fairies and ghosts that I don't believe aliens have visited us yet. --Johann 09:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  9. Doubtful, but within the outer range of possibility. --Kels 09:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  10. Weather balloons or people on drugs. Kettle o' fish 10:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  11. No. New3.pngPink(Astronomy Domine) 13:49, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  12. In the sense of green-skinned alens in flying-saucers, no. Unexplained aerial phenomena? Possibly. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.
  13. UFO's = Unidentified Flying Objects? Those are reported all the time, I've seen some myself.. hey, look at that thing in the sky, what is that? :p lol. So yes. But probably not anything from another planet - just miscellaneous space debris/meteorite/unknown military aircraft testing, etc... --Refugee 21:17, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  14. Possible, but not in the flying-saucer sense. I believe that there's intelligent life out there besides us, but if any happened upon us by chance they'd be observing without revealing themselves. --SpinyNorman 22:09, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  15. No. Anal probes, disecting cows and doodling in cornfields? If life is ever found from other planets im sure it's something weird but to fly lightyears to do that... Timppeli 22:53, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  16. UFO = Unidentified Flying Object. I am pretty sure that there are objects that are (were) flying that are (were) unidentified. therefore Yes. If you mean Alien Life/Flying Saucers, No. --CPAdmin1 23:13, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  17. This question if badly phrased. If you are asking "Have people ever seen things in the air which have not been subsequently identified?" then the answer is, pretty clearly, yes. That is why they are called Unidentified Flying Objects. If the question asks about little green men visiting us to obtain information by means of anal probing then the answer is "No".--Bobbing up 12:14, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
  18. yes - I have seen, interacted with one. it was clearly (to me) NOT a weather balloon. Carptrash 13:36, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Spring Heeled Jack (not the ska band)

  1. Much like the Monkey Man of India, spring heel jack was probably the result of hysteria Ace McWicked55.3 million page views! 00:51, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
Does that mean you're not voting for it being true? New3.pngPink(Astronomy Domine) 00:52, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  1. No, there were murders (I think) and thy were around the time of JtR (again, I think) so witness's descriptions were probably blown up out of proportion. --PsyGremlinWhut? 04:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  2. Yes, it was the work of a prctical joker (the Marquis of Waterford IIRC). Totnesmartin 05:25, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  3. Huh? --Wren 08:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  4. Never heard of it. --Johann 09:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  5. Definitely not. --Kels 09:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  6. Who? Kettle o' fish 10:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  7. No. New3.pngPink(Astronomy Domine) 13:49, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  8. No. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.
  9. Nope. --SpinyNorman 22:09, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  10. No. Timppeli 22:53, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  11. eh?--Bobbing up 12:15, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
  12. Missed ot. Or it missed me.Carptrash 13:37, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

That there is something "paranormal"

It cannot be explained by science (or has not been adequately explained) (you should probably clarify what you actually believe here; interpret as you will)

  1. I'm sort of open to this, though I can't say I believe in anything specifically. I have seen some things I am at a loss to explain. DickTurpis 00:43, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  2. Dark matter. (Note: that would be "isn't" rather than "cannot be explained by science...) New3.pngPink(Astronomy Domine) 00:51, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  3. Several things, but a more accurate explanation is cannot be verified by science for the moment) SirChuckBDMorris for new Jinx! 01:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  4. There is still much that isn't explained by science (go back to my Big Bang musings), but that doesn't imply I'll immediately substitute woo for that. Science will get there eventually - flight was still woo 150 years ago. --PsyGremlinWhut? 04:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  5. I've had personal experience of a poltergeist, so i find it hard to dismiss witness evidence if it's consistent, independent and honestly reported. This fails scientic method, and there's the danger of woo, but there seems to be stuff that science hasn't got to yet, and might not in our lifetimes. Totnesmartin 05:30, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  6. No. That which cannot be explained just can't be explained yet. Lardashe
  7. I'm sure there's SOMETHING. --Wren 08:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  8. You'd need to define "paranormal" first. --Johann 09:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  9. Too vague a question, sorry. --Kels 09:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  10. Yes, Kels answered it. This question is too paranormal. Kettle o' fish 10:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  11. If it can be shown to be real and repeatable, and cannot be explained by science then there just hasn't been enough research. If there's no evidence other than eye-witness reports and which cannot be explained away by suggestibility then it's woo. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.
    You're all right. This is way too vague. Sorry. Couldn't really capture what I was going for. DickTurpis 16:59, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  12. Same answer as for "Ghosts". --SpinyNorman 22:10, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  13. Allso think that this is too vague to answer. Timppeli 22:53, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  14. This question is too vague to deserve a simple yes or no. Furthermore, if something cannot (yet) be explained by science does that make it paranormal? The list of things which science cannot yet explain is probably infinitely greater than the list things which science can explain. Science exists in large part to investigate things it cannot yet explain.--Bobbing up 12:21, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
  15. Absolutely. It is where I live. Much of the time. Carptrash 13:38, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Love

  1. yes SusanG  ContribsTalk
  2. Yay! New3.pngPink(Astronomy Domine) 01:38, 20 September 2008 (EDT
  3. Well, yeah, but this one isn't terribly controversial (disregarding Assfly's "atheistic substitution for love" bullshit or whatever it was). I also believe in sandwiches, but I'm not going to create an entry for that. Oh, and should we be numbering these if people are going to post "no"? I will throw off the count and make the final numbers meaningless. DickTurpis 02:02, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  4. Yes. But what is it doing in such a list as this?--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 02:23, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  5. Wee! This is much more fun than the other things. --Purple George!YossieSpring in Fialta 03:50, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  6. Love is 40 years' of marriage. Or 3 minutes of squelching noises. Your call. --PsyGremlinWhut? 04:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  7. Yes - as I can't disagree with Susan. Editor at CPLiar at RP! 04:57, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  8. Yes! Totnesmartin 05:32, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  9. I have the most beautiful girlfriend. Love. Ace McWicked55.3 million page views! 07:09, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  10. Yes. But it's not as mystical as it's been made out to be. Lardashe
  11. Yes, but don't confuse passion for love. The fires of passion dim in time, but the embers of love, well tended will continue to keep you warm. God that's cheesy... did I lift that from someplace? I can't have just made that up. --Wren 08:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  12. But of course! --Johann 09:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  13. Hell, yeah! --Kels 09:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  14. (see the above answer from Kels) Kettle o' fish 10:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  15. No. It's either just another word for lust or it's friendship taken to extremes. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 14:03, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  16. Yes --CPAdmin1 20:17, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  17. Yes, and I'm thankful every day for being able to say that. --SpinyNorman 22:11, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  18. Nope, it's just a biological reaction that occurs to make sure our genes get passed on. ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ wasn't me!
  19. Mayby, debends how one defines it. Timppeli 22:53, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  20. "Is that the love between a man and a woman, or the love of a man for a fine Cuban cigar?" PFoster 23:00, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
Bahahahaha, thanks Dr. Hibbert! Ace McWickedSubstansive comments only 23:04, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  1. Definitions would be nice.--Bobbing up 12:22, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
  2. Yes. Pretty much in any use of the word excepting Love of money, power, pain, etc. Carptrash 13:39, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Susan

  1. Yes. NorsemanWassail! 09:47, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
  2. fer sure - tho she and I have disagreed on 19 of the last 20 (you count 'em) points. Carptrash 13:41, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Homer Simpson

  1. The Simpsons is a reality show, everyone knows that. Etc 05:05, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  2. I don't believe anything I see on television, but I do believe DickTurpis has got bored by now Totnesmartin 05:33, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  3. Northern Kentucky is where they live... I think they're dead by now though. Kettle o' fish 22:32, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

DickTurpis has got bored by now

  1. No. Etc 09:04, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  2. Me too. I'd rather discuss any of the above than merely have us all state our opinions. --Johann 09:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  3. Homer lives in the land of erotic cakes. --Kels 09:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  4. Who? Kettle o' fish 10:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  5. Not bored so much as wondering what part of "Sign your name below anything you have a positive belief in" is so hard to understand. DickTurpis 16:28, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
You expect us lot to do as we're told? We see a debate and dive in. Instructions are for wimps! Totnesmartin 16:35, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Letteropeners

  1. No. Barikada 02:13, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

None of the above

(note:Love added afte Damo's contrib)

  1. --DamoHi 00:47, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
    1. Well I do believe in love, not that I think there is anything intrinsically mysterious about it. I imagine it can be explained scientifically through chemical reactions etc.
On reflection I have changed my mind. I don't really believe in love. I think there are hormones and instincts that create feelings of lust and concern and desire for companionship, but this is hardly anything amazing. Just chemicals in the brain.DamoHi 16:00, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
  1. ħumanUser talk:Human
  2. Perhaps there should be a note at the top explaining that this option exists? It would have saved me some time.--Bobbing up 12:24, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
  3. tmtoulouse torment 12:44, 21 September 2008 (EDT) With the caveat that I would be willing to change my mind about any of them if presented adequate evidence, remember extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. As for love you can buy that for about $100 in the visage of oxytocin nasal spray.

Poll saturation

This place is turning into PollWiki - every day hour a new one - boring! SusanG  ContribsTalk 02:09, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Agree

Disagree

  1. You can't fight satire. New3.pngPink(Astronomy Domine) 02:15, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Robin Hood

  1. NightFlarei haz a talk page. 05:36, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
Wrong! It's actually Sir Angus of the Prune disguised as Robin Hood disguised as Sir Angus of the Prune. --JeevesMkII 07:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
Wow, Jeeves! Score mega points for the ISIRTA reference. Silver Sloth 06:15, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

The undisputed eminence of Goats

  1. They beat the ferrets pretty convincingly. The damn mice are next. tmtoulouse torment 13:44, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Vampires

Sure, we all know people that drink blood, but does that really make them vampires?

There are a lot of lawyers that are blood-suckers, so are they vampires?

Like ghosts, i don't think you can snap their picture. Well DEFINITELY not in the mirror as everybody knows. Just to be safe tho, we should probably sleep with a wooden stake, a hammer, and an anatomy book under the bed. You know, like the SCUBA gear we keep handy while we sleep for those 23-foot higher tides that Al Gore and John McCain have promised us.

-- RemBeau 14:05, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

If vampires don't reflect in mirrors, how come they have really great hair? Totnesmartin 14:24, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
You reflect, think, analyze, ponder. In other words you overheat your brain. That's why you lose your hair. Vampires instead don't reflect. In front of the mirror they prefer to comb their hair and use gel: the recipe for really great hair. Editor at CPLiar at RP! 16:27, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Actually, I haven't lost my hair! :) Totnesmartin 16:38, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
You, vampire! Editor at CPLiar at RP! 17:10, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Debate?

The new title of this page suggests that there would be some debating going on. But there isn't much, really. Is it possible to have one, or would the wiki format create a messy free-for-all? Johann 17:09, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support