Political Crossfire Forums

[mODULAR mAN]

The Comrade wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote:

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

or rather it went right over your head?

Well, I have no reason to believe in ghosts, but you are claiming to have first hand experience, yet you are telling us the details.

While you may simply accept what people say without explanation, I don't.

So, I just think you are disingenuous, delluded, and/or a liar, since you have not offered any evidence.

You have just made some wild claims and refuse to back them up - and then, critisize people for not believing what you believe.

I have posted scientific papers on why I don't believe, you have only made claims.


Do you see the difference?

[mODULAR mAN]

Enoch wrote:
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.

Then please provide the evidence. Both of you guys are claiming to have experience with ghosts.

How does it differ from the guy who said he was abducted by aliens for some probing? Do you believe them because they seem sincere in their claims, or would you ask for evidence?

You have an opportunity to prove to the world that ghosts exist. I wonder why you guys are more forthcoming with your stories?

BTW, does it bother you that everytime science has explored ghosts it has debunked the claims? In fact, it appears that 80% of ghost claims are hoaxes and the rest are misinterpretations. (Cold air, play of light, imagination, etc.)




EDIT: In fact, I am going to go one farther and claim that ghosts, gods, pixies, vampires and bogeymen have similar qualities in terms of evidence, and that the people who believe in them are overly superstitious. I am not saying I am close-minded - it would be cool to know they exist - but if you have standards for evidence, I "believe" you will find that there is nothing supernatural that we can detect, and that the best chance for the existence of any of these things are found in one place: the Imagination.

[Enoch]

mODULAR mAN wrote: Then please provide the evidence. Both of you guys are claiming to have experience with ghosts.

How does it differ from the guy who said he was abducted by aliens for some probing? Do you believe them because they seem sincere in their claims, or would you ask for evidence?

You have an opportunity to prove to the world that ghosts exist. I wonder why you guys are more forthcoming with your stories?

BTW, does it bother you that everytime science has explored ghosts it has debunked the claims? In fact, it appears that 80% of ghost claims are hoaxes and the rest are misinterpretations. (Cold air, play of light, imagination, etc.)

What kind of evidence do you want? All I have is my personal experiences that I could share, and would be happy to do so if you want. I don't have any photographs, mainly because I don't own a camera. (I'm not big on taking pictures....hell, haven't owned a camera in 7 years).

And does it bother me that science has "debunked" the claim? No, not in the slightest. I don't feel the need to prove my belief in the supernatural to people who are predisposed to disbelieve. There is an old saying that is highly appropriate here. "For the believer, no evidence is needed. For the skeptic, no evidence is available."

However, if scientists want to explore ghosts, I'll be happy to read their research and findings. It may change my mind, it may not. It depends on the study, the methodology, and the instances they are exploring.

mODULAR mAN wrote: EDIT: In fact, I am going to go one farther and claim that ghosts, gods, pixies, vampires and bogeymen have similar qualities in terms of evidence, and that the people who believe in them are overly superstitious. I am not saying I am close-minded - it would be cool to know they exist - but if you have standards for evidence, I "believe" you will find that there is nothing supernatural that we can detect, and that the best chance for the existence of any of these things are found in one place: the Imagination.

And what is your basis for saying I am "overly superstitous?" I believe in the divine, and in ghosts. Pixies, vampires, and bogeymen aren't something I have had any experience with, so I don't believe. However, should I come across a vampire, I'm sure I would change my mind.

Also, why does lack of detection indicate lack of existance? It is only a relatively recent development that we could detect atoms and molecules, but they exist.

[mODULAR mAN]

"Experience with": Funny that you use that phrase.

If I say, I have experience flying a plane, like you say you have experience with the supernatural, would you go flying with me?

It seems you have some feelings that you attribute to the divine or the supernatural.

Do you believe in Santa Claus? Why not? What rule do you have for Santa that you don't apply to gods or ghosts?

[Enoch]

mODULAR mAN wrote: "Experience with": Funny that you use that phrase.

If I say, I have experience flying a plane, like you say you have experience with the supernatural, would you go flying with me?

It seems you have some feelings that you attribute to the divine or the supernatural.

Do you believe in Santa Claus? Why not? What rule do you have for Santa that you don't apply to gods or ghosts?

Sure, I'd go flying with you, if you show me your pilot's license. But, that aside, what on earth does that have to do with ghosts?

And do I believe in Santa Claus? No, because I have never experienced anything that would lead me to believe he exists. Now, I have experienced things which lead me to believe that God exists and that ghosts exist.

[mODULAR mAN]

Enoch wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: "Experience with": Funny that you use that phrase.

If I say, I have experience flying a plane, like you say you have experience with the supernatural, would you go flying with me?

It seems you have some feelings that you attribute to the divine or the supernatural.

Do you believe in Santa Claus? Why not? What rule do you have for Santa that you don't apply to gods or ghosts?

Sure, I'd go flying with you, if you show me your pilot's license. But, that aside, what on earth does that have to do with ghosts?
Yes, indeed, but what is the equivilant to a Pilot's License in the matters of the Metaphysical/Supernatural?

What gives a Priest or you authority to speak of these things? Experience?

What level of experience? By your metric, a Pilot could get his license once he "feels" he knows enough to declare himself safe to fly. Once he "believes", he has all the authority he needs.

Quote: And do I believe in Santa Claus? No, because I have never experienced anything that would lead me to believe he exists. Now, I have experienced things which lead me to believe that God exists and that ghosts exist.

Really? You don't feel the "Christmas Spirit" during Xmas? If you say this is God, how do you know? How do you distinguish between one Supernatural feeling and another?

[Enoch]

mODULAR mAN wrote: Yes, indeed, but what is the equivilant to a Pilot's License in the matters of the Metaphysical/Supernatural?

What gives a Priest or you authority to speak of these things? Experience?

What level of experience? By your metric, a Pilot could get his license once he "feels" he knows enough to declare himself safe to fly. Once he "believes", he has all the authority he needs.

That has to be one of the most poorly constructed analogies I have ever seen. First, I never claimed any sort of expertise. Second, even if I had, there is a stark difference between discussing the supernatural and piloting a plane. One doesn't involve potential death.

If you want to deal in anolgies, at least get some cogent ones.

mODULAR mAN wrote: Really? You don't feel the "Christmas Spirit" during Xmas? If you say this is God, how do you know? How do you distinguish between one Supernatural feeling and another?

The "Christmas spirit" I feel has nothing to do with the supernatural, thank you.

[mODULAR mAN]

Enoch wrote: That has to be one of the most poorly constructed analogies I have ever seen. First, I never claimed any sort of expertise. Second, even if I had, there is a stark difference between discussing the supernatural and piloting a plane. One doesn't involve potential death.

If you want to deal in anolgies, at least get some cogent ones.

You mentioned experience with ghosts and god. What kind of experience do you have, then? What MEASURABLE experience do you have?

As for life & death - I beg to differ. I don't know which religion you think is the right one to appease your God Feeling, but many religions think that if you get it wrong, you get tortured forever after death.

Doesn't this seem important? There are Xians who base their entire belief system on the "experience" of god. They had a "feeling" that they are right and then proceed to lecture/preach on the matter. Some feel so strongly that they become Ministers, and some even become Suicide Bombers.

Based on what experience?

Do you agree that there are different levels of experience? That some are more valuable and measurable and "real"?

Quote: The "Christmas spirit" I feel has nothing to do with the supernatural, thank you.
I agree, but how do you determine this? What measuring stick do you have to measure your experience of the Xmas Spirit vs. your feeling of god?

How do you distinguish between the two? How do you know when God is "talking" to you and, say some other supernatural being?

Who made the rules to distinguish between the two, and what "experience" do they have.



You don't like the analogy, but it is apt. Perhaps you don't like it because it brings real-world sensibility to your superstitious feeling?

[Enoch]

mODULAR mAN wrote: You mentioned experience with ghosts and god. What kind of experience do you have, then? What MEASURABLE experience do you have?

I already explained that all I have our my personal stories. And, to be honest, that's all I care to have.

mODULAR mAN wrote: As for life & death - I beg to differ. I don't know which religion you think is the right one to appease your God Feeling, but many religions think that if you get it wrong, you get tortured forever after death.

Well, mine doesn't, so no problems there.

mODULAR mAN wrote: Doesn't this seem important? There are Xians who base their entire belief system on the "experience" of god. They had a "feeling" that they are right and then proceed to lecture/preach on the matter. Some feel so strongly that they become Ministers, and some even become Suicide Bombers.

Your point? I fail to see a connection between pilots and suicide bombers and a belief in ghosts. How does my belief in ghosts have a measurable effect on others? Pilots are trusted with the lives of their passengers. Suicide bombers cause material damage, if not killing lives of others. Once again, not a cogent analogy.

mODULAR mAN wrote: Do you agree that there are different levels of experience? That some are more valuable and measurable and "real"?

It depends on what field you are talking about. Either way, I'm curious to know why you are so concerned about how much experience I have had with ghosts. Does claiming one, singular, experience with ghosts differ than claiming daily occurances?

mODULAR mAN wrote: I agree, but how do you determine this? What measuring stick do you have to measure your experience of the Xmas Spirit vs. your feeling of god?

How do you distinguish between the two? How do you know when God is "talking" to you and, say some other supernatural being?

Who made the rules to distinguish between the two, and what "experience" do they have.

First, I never claimed that God talks to me. Quit attributing things to me that I haven't said.

Second, I can differentiate between the feeling I get from enjoying a holiday and my religious beliefs. What measuring stick? I don't know, probably the same as the one you use for your emotions and religious beliefs (whether Christian, Jew, or Atheist we all have religious beliefs....just may not be a part of a religion). Asking someone to provide evidence as to how they differentiate feelings is a bit ridiculous.

mODULAR mAN wrote: You don't like the analogy, but it is apt. Perhaps you don't like it because it brings real-world sensibility to your superstitious feeling?

I don't like the pilot analogy, because it is a poorly constructed analogy.

[mODULAR mAN]

It appears, then, that while you have beliefs, you don't act on them, then.

This ties all the analogies together.

1. People have beliefs
2. People act in accordance with those beliefs.

A pilot "believes" he can fly a plane because of the "experience" he had during flight school.

A Suicide Bomber "believes" his god will reward him with 72 virgins if he dies a martyr based on the "experience" he had when he read his religious text - or, had a relgiious experience.

The different qualities of Experience matter. The level of your belief - if you act on your beliefs - matters.

If you "beleive" in ghosts based on your "experience" you are going to act differently than someone who doesn't. I don't know how, but one assumes people act in accordance with their beliefs (as much as can be expected).

I'm not sure why you don't see the connection.

[Enoch]

mODULAR mAN wrote: It appears, then, that while you have beliefs, you don't act on them, then.

This ties all the analogies together.

1. People have beliefs
2. People act in accordance with those beliefs.

A pilot "believes" he can fly a plane because of the "experience" he had during flight school.

A Suicide Bomber "believes" his god will reward him with 72 virgins if he dies a martyr based on the "experience" he had when he read his religious text - or, had a relgiious experience.

The different qualities of Experience matter. The level of your belief - if you act on your beliefs - matters.

If you "beleive" in ghosts based on your "experience" you are going to act differently than someone who doesn't. I don't know how, but one assumes people act in accordance with their beliefs (as much as can be expected).

I'm not sure why you don't see the connection.

And how exactly did we get from whether or not one believes in ghosts, to suicide bombers and pilots?? I still say it is a poor analogy as you are attempting to compare people entrusted with the lives of others (pilots), to people who believe in ghosts. Don't see how a person's belief in ghosts affects others.

[mODULAR mAN]

Enoch wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: It appears, then, that while you have beliefs, you don't act on them, then.

This ties all the analogies together.

1. People have beliefs
2. People act in accordance with those beliefs.

A pilot "believes" he can fly a plane because of the "experience" he had during flight school.

A Suicide Bomber "believes" his god will reward him with 72 virgins if he dies a martyr based on the "experience" he had when he read his religious text - or, had a relgiious experience.

The different qualities of Experience matter. The level of your belief - if you act on your beliefs - matters.

If you "beleive" in ghosts based on your "experience" you are going to act differently than someone who doesn't. I don't know how, but one assumes people act in accordance with their beliefs (as much as can be expected).

I'm not sure why you don't see the connection.

And how exactly did we get from whether or not one believes in ghosts, to suicide bombers and pilots?? I still say it is a poor analogy as you are attempting to compare people entrusted with the lives of others (pilots), to people who believe in ghosts. Don't see how a person's belief in ghosts affects others.

1. I am trying to establish why you believe in ghosts. You said you have experience with them. I ask what kind?
2. Experience means you have a measurable amount of knowledge that translates into evidence for a belief (hence my pilot analogy).
3. Beliefs inform actions (I believe this elevator will hold me, so i will get in." "I believe I can fly this plane" "I believe there is a god that will reward me".)

If you believe in ghosts, I assume you have rigorously looked at the evidence, since it seems a funny thing to simply accept (since most ghost sitings are hoaxes or mistaken. That and, there is no evidence - no, ectoplasm left behind, etc.)

I am trying to understand what level of experience you have with ghosts. What experience did you go through that convinced you that you know ghosts exist? (While I could try to make an argument that ghost-believers are illogical and therefore a danger to society, it's a spurious argument).

I am asking you: why do you believe in ghosts? Why is the evidence you have so compelling? How does your evidence for ghosts differ from evidence for pixies or Santa or god or etc...? What would make you NOT believe in ghosts (or god)? What rules do you have for accepting supernatural evidence? How do you know it is supernatural evidence and not your mind (or friends) playing tricks?

[The Comrade]

mODULAR mAN wrote:
Well, I have no reason to believe in ghosts, but you are claiming to have first hand experience, yet you are telling us the details.

While you may simply accept what people say without explanation, I don't.

So, I just think you are disingenuous, delluded, and/or a liar, since you have not offered any evidence.

You have just made some wild claims and refuse to back them up - and then, critisize people for not believing what you believe.

I have posted scientific papers on why I don't believe, you have only made claims.


Do you see the difference?


what evidence can i provide to you, considering it's a first hand experience?

and your misantropic view of me is rather paranoid, don't you think?

and you yourself claimed ghosts are supernatural, so how can any science be applied to it?

[mODULAR mAN]

The Comrade wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote:
Well, I have no reason to believe in ghosts, but you are claiming to have first hand experience, yet you are telling us the details.

While you may simply accept what people say without explanation, I don't.

So, I just think you are disingenuous, delluded, and/or a liar, since you have not offered any evidence.

You have just made some wild claims and refuse to back them up - and then, critisize people for not believing what you believe.

I have posted scientific papers on why I don't believe, you have only made claims.


Do you see the difference?


what evidence can i provide to you, considering it's a first hand experience?

and your misantropic view of me is rather paranoid, don't you think?

and you yourself claimed ghosts are supernatural, so how can any science be applied to it?

Well, you tell me. Can the scientifc methodolgy be applied to ghosts? Can any measuring device we know of, measure a ghost? All our measuring devices are improvements on our own senses, so if you felt one, or saw one, a measuring device (camera, for example) should be able to pick them up.

Basically, why aren't you guys offering up your evidence.

"I am God". Can I stop with that claim, or would you ask for a follow up? Would it matter to you if I really was God?

[The Comrade]

mODULAR mAN wrote:

Well, you tell me. Can the scientifc methodolgy be applied to ghosts? Can any measuring device we know of, measure a ghost? All our measuring devices are improvements on our own senses, so if you felt one, or saw one, a measuring device (camera, for example) should be able to pick them up.

according to your own statements they can't, because ghosts are supernatural.

mODULAR mAN wrote:
Basically, why aren't you guys offering up your evidence.

"I am God". Can I stop with that claim, or would you ask for a follow up? Would it matter to you if I really was God?

hyperbole.

[Gilbert1908]

mODULAR mAN wrote: 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.)

In fact I do agree with almost all of what you have written here. Truth is NOT subjective or belief in what is true is most certainly.

For example I do not believe in ghosts, but I most certainly believe in some supernatural plane.

And your definition of faith is not accurate when it relates to the following of Christianity.

Belief in God requires the faith of belief without tangible proof that is most certainly true, but to live as a Christian (as I am sure is true for any other religion) the meaning of faith is not simple belief but complete trust.

[mODULAR mAN]

The Comrade wrote:
according to your own statements they can't, because ghosts are supernatural.
Are they? How do you know? I don't. Someone said they were, I was saying that IF they were Supernatural.

What are they?

(I don't believe they exist so that makes them, well, non-existant...)

Why are you being obtuse? Have I called you out to stake your claim, but you have decided to dance?

Quote: Quote:
Basically, why aren't you guys offering up your evidence.

"I am God". Can I stop with that claim, or would you ask for a follow up? Would it matter to you if I really was God?

hyperbole.

How do you know? What would you need me to show you, in order for you to believe I am God? (Or a ghost?)

[StrangerWitCandy]

When people see ghosts, why are they often clothed? Wouldn't ghosts be nude? Or take a form other than human?

I'm not saying ghosts don't exist. I honestly don't know. But when people see ghosts dressed up in typically creepy clothes (think 1700s or something), I tend to doubt its an actual spirit and more likely the mind's fulfillment of a paranoid psychological fantasy.

Out of curiousity, for those who have witnessed ghosts, what did they look like?

[The Comrade]

mODULAR mAN wrote:
Are they? How do you know? I don't. Someone said they were, I was saying that IF they were Supernatural.

What are they?

(I don't believe they exist so that makes them, well, non-existant...)

Why are you being obtuse? Have I called you out to stake your claim, but you have decided to dance?

i'm merely going by your logic.


and i've made my claim. you have a paranoid misantropic view of my argument because it doesn't conform to yours, and as such, there is no point in repeating myself verbatim so you can merely recieve my posts with the same "la la la not listening" attitude.



mODULAR mAN wrote: How do you know? What would you need me to show you, in order for you to believe I am God? (Or a ghost?)


how do you know i'm not sitting here naked masturbating to your every word?


you know this because it's a stupid claim.

much in the sense of how your argument is based on a stupid hyperbole.

[The Comrade]

StrangerWitCandy wrote: When people see ghosts, why are they often clothed? Wouldn't ghosts be nude? Or take a form other than human?

I'm not saying ghosts don't exist. I honestly don't know. But when people see ghosts dressed up in typically creepy clothes (think 1700s or something), I tend to doubt its an actual spirit and more likely the mind's fulfillment of a paranoid psychological fantasy.


i didn't even know what ghosts were until i saw them.


my dead relatives included(i saw them before i understand the idea of death, or the idea of a ghost. it was a rather spooky time for the family to have a three year old talking to his dead grandparents)