Ghosts

[naomi24]

This emanates from another thread where two people who have been raised as Christians and have and do argue here in favour of religion dismissed the notion that people see ghosts. The question is if you believe that human beings possess a spirit, or a soul, that survives corporal death, why do you doubt that ‘ghosts’ exist?

[Mojo-Jo-Jo]

speak as an atheist btw. A true one

[naomi24]

Pixie, the OP was a different question, entirely unrelated to the distasteful nonsense that has ensued here.

Mojo, judging by your aggressive performance tonight, I’ve no doubt that any extension in your thinking would be of benefit.

Jim, //I'm plenty curious enough//

I very much doubt it.

[jim360]

That's OK, because your opinion doesn't matter to me either. You're also wrong, but never mind.

[naomi24]

:o)

I'm going to bed. Night all.

[Mojo-Jo-Jo]

Beautifully dismissive Naomi, but avoiding the point.
You know that you are the most vocal member of R&S but it seems you are unwilling to be challenged and you may dismiss me as you wish but the truth is you don't like me and others like me exposing your flaws.
I have not insulted you, or cast aspersions on your intelligence or morality.
I have mentioned your hypocrisy, and try as you might to disparage me, I haven't said anything that isn't true.
You can try to negate my comments, but they are true and fair.
you use faith in the same way that religious people do and I have lost respect in your arguments because of your selective thinking.
As I mentioned earlier, I don't care what you think of my opinions, they are just that.
As long as you are convinced that god doesn't exist because the science doesn't back it up but you're convinced that ghosts exist because you just know, you are a hypocrite.
Calling me aggressive doesn't make me less so and weakens your argument.

[Mojo-Jo-Jo]

I meant you not me

[jim360]

Can I just say, mojo, that I am glad that you have finally said what I've been thinking for a long time.

[naomi24]

Mojo, It was way past my bedtime, but I’m all set to go again now, so we can only hope that will cheer you up. Unless you are determined to be deliberately obtuse, it would appear that you – and Jim who added his revealing two-pennyworth to your cock-eyed post last night – are suffering from an inability to comprehend plain English. I don’t disbelieve that God exists because science doesn’t back it up – my conclusion has been reached through rational study – nothing to do with science - and my thoughts on the existence of ‘ghosts’ result from personal experiences that I cannot deny – no ‘faith’ involved – and certainly no ‘supernatural’. Furthermore, my curiosity about dowsing is peaked by accounts from people who say they have experienced it. You see, unlike you, I am not so arrogant as to immediately brand them all deluded, liars, or crazy – which is what you are in effect doing. Since I do not believe that the supernatural exists, I do not suggest that any of the claimed unexplained experiences emanate from supernatural causes, but simply from natural causes that are currently elusive to science. Therefore, unless you are incapable of understanding that suggestion, which frankly, given a little thought, should be simple enough, how curiosity and an unwillingness to loftily brand millions of people frauds makes me a hypocrite remains a mystery to me. Is that clear enough for you?

[Octavius]

The stories of "ghost" sitings in the bible are just as anecdotal and allegorical as many of the other passages.

I do not believe in ghosts, and do not believe people can see them. I just believe that humans have active imaginations, a desire for explanation and the desire to be considered "specially connected" to the spiritual world. Its just brain activity putting two and two together and inventing sixth sense.

Stories of ghostly appritions are just that, stories. Good for the campfire and for Hollywood, but not much else.

[naomi24]

Octavius, //The stories of "ghost" sitings in the bible are just as anecdotal and allegorical as many of the other passages. //

Are they? How do you separate the anecdotal and allegorical from the rest?

[jim360]

Something you seem to fail to understand is that it is possible for people to be called wrong without also being deluded or liars. I have never called people liars, nor are they deluded. But you should recognise that the human senses are inherently untrustworthy. I've lost count of how many times I've fallen tens of metres in my bed while going precisely nowhere, for example (hypnic jerk), while study after study exposes the fact that eyewitness evidence is unreliable, for example by being led to see what the questioner wants to see, or misinterprets what was seen. And these are just some of the reasons for being sceptical of ghost stories, or dowsing, or whatever. You should be sceptical of your own senses -- and in fact it is arrogant not to do so, not to recognise that your own senses are untrustworthy, unless you go to great lengths to ensure otherwise.

I never called anyone a liar or a fraud. They were just (almost certainly) wrong. Most likely not wrong about what they saw, but wrong at least about how they interpreted it. It's not rude to say that. But are you arrogant enough to think that you are the only person capable of observing the world properly? Are you arrogant enough to think that thousands upon thousands of scientists whose job it is both to do so, and to try and ensure that they account for all possible sources of error, have not considered the idea that they might be wrong, that is so blindingly obvious to you? And finally, are you arrogant enough to believe that only you, or rather only through your own method of "rational study" are capable of certainty?

I would like to think that the answer to all these questions is "no". But in order for them to be "no", you need, like I said, to recognise that the human experience is subject to all sorts of flaws, and that your own senses are just as unreliable as anyone else's. Yes, including mine. Not to recognise this basic truth would be most arrogant indeed.

[naomi24]

Jim, you are mistaken. I do recognise human failing – but not to worry. Clearly my sins, in your opinion, are great indeed.

[Octavius]

"How do you separate the anecdotal and allegorical from the rest?"

My conclusion on ghosts has been reached through rational study.

[naomi24]

Octavius, that doesn't explain how you separate the anecdotal and allegorical from the rest.

So what were your conclusions on the existence of the Holy Ghost?

[Khandro]

In his recent book 'Hallucinations' (Picador £18.99) the psychologist Oliver Sacks quotes from William James's 'The Principle of Psychology' of 1890:
"An hallucination is a strictly sensational form of consciousness, as good and true a sensation as if it were a real object there. The object happens to be not there, that is all."

[naomi24]

Khandro, I think we're all aware of that.

[jim360]

It's not a question of sinning at all. However, you have pretty much always put your own personal experience ahead of pretty much everything else. Sometimes even ahead of people who have seen the same thing as you, in a different context. One time, which I found particularly revealing, was in the debate over mediums:

"Fortune Tellers are dangerous charlatans who prey on the vulnerable - but I do have some experience of so called 'clairvoyants' - and one in particular made absolute sense."

What are you saying here? The way I read it is along the lines of "I don't really believe these stories except for the one which happened to me." Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it does seem as if that is what you are saying, or something very close to it.

Anyway, I don't think your sins are "great indeed". I just think you are also wrong about a few things. Well, maybe quite a lot of things, but certainly about one big thing in particular that is the common thread: how you evaluate evidence.

[jomifl]

Religion, ghosts, spirits, souls, dowsing etc. all form part of a 'faith' based belief system. They are not amenable to cogent discussion as their proponents continually bring more and more irrelevant and/or incredible elements into any discussion. The lesson we can learn from these discussions is that our senses are far more fallible than we realise and that people will do almost anything to fit the world to their preconceptions or assumptions, that is all.

[jomifl]

Sandy, how did you acquire access to god's thoughts and intentions? You are aware that there is no record of god having said anything?

[chrisgel]

At last - There's an App for it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2386555/Spirit-Story-Box-spooky-app-lets-Apples-iPhone-communicate-ghosts.html