Political Crossfire Forums

[Gilbert1908]

dtwizzy2k5 wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Can an atheist believe there are ghosts????

Sure they can. Except instead of admitting that God exists they will justsay it has "something to do with energy" and "science will figure it out eventually".

Well then why couldn't God have "something to do with energy"? If there can be life after death in ANY form it seems to me that an atheist the leaves atheism behind.

[mODULAR mAN]

Gilbert1908 wrote: dtwizzy2k5 wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Can an atheist believe there are ghosts????

Sure they can. Except instead of admitting that God exists they will justsay it has "something to do with energy" and "science will figure it out eventually".

Well then why couldn't God have "something to do with energy"? If there can be life after death in ANY form it seems to me that an atheist the leaves atheism behind.

Buddhists are atheist yet believe in reincarnation. When one is coming up with alternate theories, there are no rules except keep it vague and claim "it can't be known".

Their theory holds equal wieght as theists claims.

[Gilbert1908]

mODULAR mAN wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: dtwizzy2k5 wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Can an atheist believe there are ghosts????

Sure they can. Except instead of admitting that God exists they will justsay it has "something to do with energy" and "science will figure it out eventually".

Well then why couldn't God have "something to do with energy"? If there can be life after death in ANY form it seems to me that an atheist the leaves atheism behind.

Buddhists are atheist yet believe in reincarnation. When one is coming up with alternate theories, there are no rules except keep it vague and claim "it can't be known".

Their theory holds equal wieght as theists claims.

Their theory only holds equal weight to those who disbelieve BOTH.

[mODULAR mAN]

BTW, here is a very recent scientific study about ghosts, zombies, etc.

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608059
http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0608/0608059.pdf

[mODULAR mAN]

Gilbert1908 wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: dtwizzy2k5 wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Can an atheist believe there are ghosts????

Sure they can. Except instead of admitting that God exists they will justsay it has "something to do with energy" and "science will figure it out eventually".

Well then why couldn't God have "something to do with energy"? If there can be life after death in ANY form it seems to me that an atheist the leaves atheism behind.

Buddhists are atheist yet believe in reincarnation. When one is coming up with alternate theories, there are no rules except keep it vague and claim "it can't be known".

Their theory holds equal wieght as theists claims.

Their theory only holds equal weight to those who disbelieve BOTH.
Well, they both are theories that are supported by similar levels of evidence. If the Buddhist accepts your rules for accepting evidence, you must accept his. (In fact, the Buddhist is relying on current, observable data, which the theist doesn't.)

The truth is not dependent on various individual beliefs or disbeliefs, the matter rests on what level of evidence you allow.

Based on a fair methodology, both are equal claims: both claim something that can't be tested and are pure conjecture.

[The Comrade]

mODULAR mAN wrote:

I answered, and gave you links.

Figments of the imagination, plays of light, etc.
Depends on the situtation.


wrong on both occasions.



figments of my imagination don't grab me, break my things, hide them, talk to me, etc. especially when i don't even have my mind on the subject.


plays of light? lights don't turn themselves into 18th century girls. plays of light don't manifest into audio. plays of light don't make your skin crawl.

[ieatfood]

The Comrade wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote:

I answered, and gave you links.

Figments of the imagination, plays of light, etc.
Depends on the situtation.


wrong on both occasions.



figments of my imagination don't grab me, break my things, hide them, talk to me, etc. especially when i don't even have my mind on the subject.


plays of light? lights don't turn themselves into 18th century girls. plays of light don't manifest into audio. plays of light don't make your skin crawl.

are you saying that you have seen a ghost grab you, break your things, hide your things, talk to you, etc???

Or were you just drunk and knocked over your table stand?

[The Comrade]

ieatfood wrote:
are you saying that you have seen a ghost grab you, break your things, hide your things, talk to you, etc???

Or were you just drunk and knocked over your table stand?


yes i am. and i don't drink, do drugs, or have any mental illness.

[mODULAR mAN]

The Comrade wrote: ieatfood wrote:
are you saying that you have seen a ghost grab you, break your things, hide your things, talk to you, etc???

Or were you just drunk and knocked over your table stand?


yes i am. and i don't drink, do drugs, or have any mental illness.

Perhaps you should get the last item checked out. I'm not joking. I'm not saying you are dumb, or anything, just that if you think there are ghosts, you really should get yourself checked out.

Let me put it another way: I don't believe you. I believe that YOU believe you saw a ghost, but I don't believe it was a ghost.

However, you have the perfect opportunity to offer your evidence and make your case.
But I bet you can't provide enough evidence to make me question my position regarding your claim.

This shouldn't stop you from trying.

[The Comrade]

mODULAR mAN wrote:

Perhaps you should get the last item checked out. I'm not joking. I'm not saying you are dumb, or anything, just that if you think there are ghosts, you really should get yourself checked out.

Let me put it another way: I don't believe you. I believe that YOU believe you saw a ghost, but I don't believe it was a ghost.

However, you have the perfect opportunity to offer your evidence and make your case.
But I bet you can't provide enough evidence to make me question my position regarding your claim.

This shouldn't stop you from trying.


my entire family doesn't believe in the supernatural and they've seen ghosts. i've had quite a few experiences myself. i have quite a "psychic" edge to me as well. there isn't any way to prove this to you since you have such a closed mind on the matter.


my own friends, before telling them anything about my house, claim to have seen things. and they don't believe in the supernatural either.


i would say it certainly isn't misleading lights.

[ieatfood]

The Comrade wrote: ieatfood wrote:
are you saying that you have seen a ghost grab you, break your things, hide your things, talk to you, etc???

Or were you just drunk and knocked over your table stand?


yes i am. and i don't drink, do drugs, or have any mental illness.

do you have a mind?

the mind often plays tricks on you, even in the absense of a disease diagnosed by a board-certified psychiatrist

i'm not saying that ghosts dont exist
maybe they do
im just saying that from my point of view, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof
unfortunately, hearsay does not qualify.

[The Comrade]

ieatfood wrote:

do you have a mind?

the mind often plays tricks on you, even in the absense of a disease diagnosed by a board-certified psychiatrist

i'm not saying that ghosts dont exist
maybe they do
im just saying that from my point of view, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

the mind doesn't grab s**t out of my hand, or trip me, or grab me, or hide my things.

[mODULAR mAN]

The Comrade wrote: ieatfood wrote:

do you have a mind?

the mind often plays tricks on you, even in the absense of a disease diagnosed by a board-certified psychiatrist

i'm not saying that ghosts dont exist
maybe they do
im just saying that from my point of view, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

the mind doesn't grab s**t out of my hand, or trip me, or grab me, or hide my things.

Why did you have s**t in your hand? :?

Anyhow, just because I'm skeptical doesn't mean you shouldn't make your case. Maybe other people want to hear your supernatural yarns?


BTW, "Science" doesn't keep quiet just because people are skeptical, it bravely forges ahead.

[The Comrade]

mODULAR mAN wrote:

Why did you have s**t in your hand? :?

Anyhow, just because I'm skeptical doesn't mean you shouldn't make your case. Maybe other people want to hear your supernatural yarns?


BTW, "Science" doesn't keep quiet just because people are skeptical, it bravely forges ahead.


i'm going to describe how i feel about this post with a short dialogue...

man: so father, is it possible that god didn't create the earth?
priest:NO, I DON'T WANT TO HEAR YOUR WILD OPINION ON THE MATTER! THE CHURCH IS RIGHT, ANYTHING YOU SAY IS WRONG. RAHHHHH
man: but father, the church teaches...
priest:THE CHURCH TEACHES YOU TO ACCEPT WHAT IT WANTS YOU TO ACCEPT. NOW CONFORM, CONFORM AND ENJOY IT!

i hope that cleared things up.

[Gilbert1908]

mODULAR mAN wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: dtwizzy2k5 wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Can an atheist believe there are ghosts????

Sure they can. Except instead of admitting that God exists they will justsay it has "something to do with energy" and "science will figure it out eventually".

Well then why couldn't God have "something to do with energy"? If there can be life after death in ANY form it seems to me that an atheist the leaves atheism behind.

Buddhists are atheist yet believe in reincarnation. When one is coming up with alternate theories, there are no rules except keep it vague and claim "it can't be known".

Their theory holds equal wieght as theists claims.

Their theory only holds equal weight to those who disbelieve BOTH.
Well, they both are theories that are supported by similar levels of evidence. If the Buddhist accepts your rules for accepting evidence, you must accept his. (In fact, the Buddhist is relying on current, observable data, which the theist doesn't.)

The truth is not dependent on various individual beliefs or disbeliefs, the matter rests on what level of evidence you allow.

Based on a fair methodology, both are equal claims: both claim something that can't be tested and are pure conjecture.

Truth is independent of evidence since a truth can be unknown or for that matter unknowable.

A truth if it exists, can exist independant of our knowledge of it, and it certainly can exist withoutour ability to prove it exists.

Opinion about a truth can vary, you may think because there is not evidence of a thing that it can not be TRUE, but lack of evidence of whether something is true or false only effects OUR perception and understanding, not the truth of the thing itself.

Buddahism and Christianity are not "theories", Buddahism is a belief system and Christianity is a religion based upon a belief as a specific historical event which can be believed or denied.

And the only people who would say that they hold equal wieght are those people who would deny BOTH have value, anyone who would accept one or the other as their own belief or similiar enough to their own belief to see similarities will choose one as more pursuasive over the other. The Muslim and the Jew will side with Christianity over Buddahism as a philosophy, perhaps a Confucianist or some other easter philosophy will feel more kinship with a Buddahist?

Only a minority of people primarily Atheists would say that the two are equal in weight philosophically or theologically.

[mODULAR mAN]

The Comrade wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote:

Why did you have s**t in your hand? :?

Anyhow, just because I'm skeptical doesn't mean you shouldn't make your case. Maybe other people want to hear your supernatural yarns?


BTW, "Science" doesn't keep quiet just because people are skeptical, it bravely forges ahead.


i'm going to describe how i feel about this post with a short dialogue...

man: so father, is it possible that god didn't create the earth?
priest:NO, I DON'T WANT TO HEAR YOUR WILD OPINION ON THE MATTER! THE CHURCH IS RIGHT, ANYTHING YOU SAY IS WRONG. RAHHHHH
man: but father, the church teaches...
priest:THE CHURCH TEACHES YOU TO ACCEPT WHAT IT WANTS YOU TO ACCEPT. NOW CONFORM, CONFORM AND ENJOY IT!

i hope that cleared things up.

Yes it does. You're insane. :twisted:

[The Comrade]

mODULAR mAN wrote:

Yes it does. You're insane. :twisted:

or rather it went right over your head?

[ieatfood]

The Comrade wrote: ieatfood wrote:

do you have a mind?

the mind often plays tricks on you, even in the absense of a disease diagnosed by a board-certified psychiatrist

i'm not saying that ghosts dont exist
maybe they do
im just saying that from my point of view, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

the mind doesn't grab s**t out of my hand, or trip me, or grab me, or hide my things.

maybe you're living in the matrix and that was just a program glitch.

free your mind.

[mODULAR mAN]

Gilbert1908 wrote:
Truth is independent of evidence since a truth can be unknown or for that matter unknowable.

A truth if it exists, can exist independant of our knowledge of it, and it certainly can exist withoutour ability to prove it exists.

Opinion about a truth can vary, you may think because there is not evidence of a thing that it can not be TRUE, but lack of evidence of whether something is true or false only effects OUR perception and understanding, not the truth of the thing itself.

Buddahism and Christianity are not "theories", Buddahism is a belief system and Christianity is a religion based upon a belief as a specific historical event which can be believed or denied.

And the only people who would say that they hold equal wieght are those people who would deny BOTH have value, anyone who would accept one or the other as their own belief or similiar enough to their own belief to see similarities will choose one as more pursuasive over the other. The Muslim and the Jew will side with Christianity over Buddahism as a philosophy, perhaps a Confucianist or some other easter philosophy will feel more kinship with a Buddahist?

Only a minority of people primarily Atheists would say that the two are equal in weight philosophically or theologically.

Sure, we can be wrong in reading evidence, but surely Evidence and the truth is not independent.

We can go on a number of tacks regarding "Truth", but it becomes so acedemic, it's pointless (for example, we may know the truth but not know that we know it, or know the truth but not for reasons we think).
True, we may never know the truth, but we so know many truths.

If you walk in front of a speeding bus, you die. The Moon exists. If I type a message, and the internet is working, you will get this message (electrons are predictable).

These are utilitarian truths. They are true because we can expect them to be true for 100% of people, for all of human history. Sure, electrons might be angels, or it's not electrons, but some other particle that is doing the work, but that doesn't matter on a certain level. (There are truths that don't matter, too.)

So, is it a (cue angels singing) a TRUTH that the Moon exists? We will never know. We may not even be able to know the truth if we see it, but for all purposes - based on clear rules of evidence, the Moon exists.

Theists and Afterlife-ists can not say the same thing about their theory. (Theory, because you reach a belief after looking at evidence). THe evidence to support their theory is equal: there is none that meet any basic rule of evidence that we accept.

However, both Religion and Afterlife theorists operate on Faith.

Faith: A belief in something despite evidence for it, or despite evidence against it.

There is nothing more theoretical, or speculative than the theory of an afterlife.

Buddhists get the idea from misappropriating Energy Conservation. Religionists get it from text written in more superstitious times.

I'm afraid, though, that we can descend into semantics very quickly. In fact, I don't doubt we probably agree on many things, but we are using terms differently. Religionists generally have a p.o.v. that there is an Absolute, and this informs their language. If you presume there is an Absolute, you avoid language that supports an alternative view.

I presume that we don't know, but that by rules of evidence we use for other aspects of our life, I am not inclined to be convinced. (And when a ghost whisperer refuses to discuss what could be the most important evidence for ghosts in this century, I am dismayed, since I suspect he is either mentally/chemically predisposed to see "visions" (like Paul), or is a liar.)

[Enoch]

mODULAR mAN wrote: BTW, here is a very recent scientific study about ghosts, zombies, etc.

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608059
http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0608/0608059.pdf That is an interesting paper. Although, it is hardly a study so much as a brief literature review and comparative paper. From what I could tell, no independent data collection, study, or work was done. Also, it is interesting, but don't know if it is exactly groundbreaking work to compare physics to folklore.

However, that aside, I still believe wholeheartedly in ghosts. I have seen them, felt them, and had more experiences with them than I can count. Now, before you claim that I am ignoring science, understand that just because attempts are made to explain the supernatural through physics does not mean it is definitive proof. As I stated earlier, it is my belief that the supernatural (please, no semantics arguments this time) is not bound by the same rules we are. Just because science attempts to explain away something, doesn't mean it is right.


Oh...and as a sidenote, I particularly had a good laugh at the discussion of vampires. I can't believe he calls himself a scientist and makes a statement like "we will ignore the human mortality and birth rate." :roll:

I'm sorry, but those number would have an effect on your study. If you are truly a scientist, you must account for all variables known.

Also...he is wrong when he stated that "when a vampire feeds the human population is decreased by one, and the vampire population increases by one." That is not necissarily true. There are a myriad of legends in which a human only becomes a vampire if fed upon, and forced to feed off of the vampire. Simply being bitten does not, in many legends, kill you or turn you in to a vampire. He is focusing on very selective myths to dismiss them all.

I don't believe in vampires, but just love to point out errors in his, supposed, scientific study. God...this paper looks to have been written by someone with only a terse understanding of science and an even smaller understanding of supernatural folkore.