Are these Ghosts or Just my Imagination?

[Inazuma]

If you believe in God, you automatically believe in ghosts as well.

Speaking in the context of Protestant Christianity, that is absolutely false. If you are part of this religion, then you believe that when you die, you either go to Heaven or Hell, and that there is no other option.

If you don't believe in ghosts, you cannot believe in God since God basically is a ghost. A ghost is a spirit, a soul, a person without a body.

Everyone knows the context being spoken of here is Human ghosts. Also, that is a horribly skewed definition of the idea; it is like saying that a person wearing a sheet and saying "boo!" is a ghost.

When you go to heaven or hell, you don't take your body with you, correct? You are a "ghost". A soul who has died and left his body.

[hashiriya1]

C'mon guys. Get along. This thread was never meant to be serious.

[Hatta]

I think the debate has been quite interesting so far, carry on.

[Limewater]

When you go to heaven or hell, you don't take your body with you, correct? You are a "ghost". A soul who has died and left his body.

The common teaching in Protestant Christianity is that, at least among the saved, one receives a new body. There's a lot of variability within the umbrella of protestantism, though.

[dsheinem]

First off, as per usual in a lot of these discussions I find that I generally agree with Inazuma, if not always with the methods he chooses to make his case. That said, over time my view of those methods have gone from them being "rage inducing" to "irritating" to "somewhat charming in a bizarre way". Anyway, cheers Izzy.

Okay, Limewater, here goes...I am getting a bit spent on this conversation though!

But now you're to the point of believing my stories because you trust me.

That's A from my example. You completely ignored B. My belief requires the presence of both.

Something a scientist believes to be observable is just kind of accepted by fiat...I don't know how or why, but it seems like we place science and scientists up on a pedestal as models of objectivity.

The intellectual and cultural deference to science probably comes from their contribution to human health, knowledge, and technology (including that TV that lets you watch ghost hunter shows.). Read Thomas Kuhn for more on science's ascension to the "seat of truth."

But I'm actually less interested in your philosophy and beliefs than your commitment to it in exclusion of all others, and rejection of the possibility that others are valid.

I don't deny the right for others to have beliefs, but I have expressed my reasons for why I don't see them as valid. I have also explained that I see them as potentially harmful to the greater human good.

Can you give an example or two of this? Are you just talking about sketchy ghost photos?

We know from science that thunder is not caused by Thor and that there are not giant dragons on the edges of the earth's corners.

I think that people tend to think that others who are ideologically aligned with them are generally smarter, more objective, et cetera.

No argument there.

Do you think that believing in ghosts will directly affect how someone votes?

Indirectly - people vote based on their beliefs, and surveys show correlation between belief in paranormal and religious beliefs: http://www.gallup.com/poll/16915/three- ... ormal.aspx

I think I am about done with this. For the record I am open to the possibility that we may someday explain the phenomena people experience as ghosts (perhaps through psychology, biology, neuroscience, etc.), but until such time I have to act based on the evidence before me. There is no evidence for the existence of ghosts based on every measure that I hold to be valid. Any other "evidence" or speculation is hogwash.

[Limewater]

That's A from my example. You completely ignored B. My belief requires the presence of both.

I did not ignore part B. I merely focused on part A because that was the primary point I was trying to make. You claimed earlier that you did not believe in people's encounters with the supernatural because those experiences could not be observed, measured, repeated, et cetera. You came up with your part A and B requirements to believe a story, but part A also fails to meet your requirements. Therefore, you shouldn't believe part A, and so part B is irrelevant.

Set up the ghost situation. Say I see a ghost (part A). Say you believe in ghosts (part B). Then you would believe me. However, in practice you claim that part B is false BECAUSE part A is not observable, repeatable, measurable, et cetera. But, you're unwilling to consider part A because part B is false. You're relying on a set of requirements that are essentially impossible to meet (barring, I suppose, your own person haunting or something, but then no reasonable person would believe you, right?). That's really not a whole lot better than arguing that something's true because it can't be proven false, at least as far as I can see.

The intellectual and cultural deference to science probably comes from their contribution to human health, knowledge, and technology (including that TV that lets you watch ghost hunter shows.). Read Thomas Kuhn for more on science's ascension to the "seat of truth."

I'm somewhat familiar with Kuhn. That's part of the reason I mentioned old, cranky scientists needing to die off for something to be accepted. I think I used poor phrasing in my previous post. I'm pretty sure I understand why, culturally, we treat science and scientists the way we do. I meant to convey that I don't really think it is appropriate.

I don't deny the right for others to have beliefs, but I have expressed my reasons for why I don't see them as valid. I have also explained that I see them as potentially harmful to the greater human good.

You actually haven't said anything to defend materialism or actively reject competing philosophies. Add to that, there are reasonable philosophies which don't really value the greater human good, anyway.

We know from science that thunder is not caused by Thor and that there are not giant dragons on the edges of the earth's corners.

I don't know a whole lot about Norse mythology, but I am not aware that Thor was really believed to be the cause of thunder and lightning. Googling around did not turn up anything clear or credible. Based upon this, I don't see how science has anything to say on the existence or nonexistence of Thor.

Can you explain what you mean about giant dragons at the earths corners? I do not understand it. If you simply mean the existence of dragons, I don' see how such a belief would be classified as "supernatural" unless these things were supposed to have magical powers or something.

Indirectly - people vote based on their beliefs, and surveys show correlation between belief in paranormal and religious beliefs: http://www.gallup.com/poll/16915/three- ... ormal.aspx

Ah, so really it's Christians who are the "ignorant" ones! That's the only religion Gallup mentioned. But now you're arguing a correlation to a causal relationship. That's a little tenuous. Incidentally, I'm not surprised but am kind of disappointed that the correlation between Christianity and the paranormal. Not that Christians do or should believe that ghosts walk the earth, but there are, off the top of my head, three Biblical accounts of the spirits of dead people people appearing-- the witch of Endor brings back Samuel, Moses and Elijah hang out with Christ, and Christ is resurrected. Though I guess the last one would not be a ghost.

There is no evidence for the existence of ghosts based on every measure that I hold to be valid. Any other "evidence" or speculation is hogwash.

We can't necessarily write off another person's experience as speculative or hogwash. Sure, it's not enough to convince you. It's not enough to convince me. But having not had such an experince myself, I can't speak to how convincing it would be to someone if it actually happened to them. I imagine that, had I been haunted by a ghost, I would believe in them.

[fvgazi]

Lets pretend that ghosts are real and it has been proven.

What is the use of being a ghost? It doesn't fall into anything religious or logical. Being a ghost and wandering earth for all eternity would seem worse than any hell would, so being in purgatory makes no sense. Being a ghost serves no purpose otherwise. It doesn't fit in with our life-cycle.

Why be forced to wander the same spot? Especially if the ghost was a victim and not being punished. Seems cruel and not something any God would judge upon an innocent.

How come only humans are ghosts? What about our ancestors? Neanderthals and proto-humans?

How come every time you take a picture every shot is not full of ghost images? There are 6 billion people living right now. For the past 200,000 years there must have been BILLIONS of human lives that ended. Seems like that would flood the earth with ghosts.

[pakopako]

I think the debate has been quite interesting so far, carry on.

...Buh? Ten pages worth? Anyone have a TL;DR version, because after page 3, I hear people talking about icons and worship in a topic that started out with the Ghosts from Pac-man.

[GSZX1337]

The problem, for me, is that the people who believe in ghosts, angels, etc. are often (not always) the same people...advocating that we ignore "bogus" scientific warnings about things like climate change

Actually, according to several surveys done on this, Atheists are actually the ones who are more likely to believe in paranormal phenomena like ghosts, bigfoot, aliens, etc.

I call bullshit. You're going to have to provide some links.

If you believe in God, you automatically believe in ghosts as well.

Speaking in the context of Protestant Christianity, that is absolutely false. If you are part of this religion, then you believe that when you die, you either go to Heaven or Hell, and that there is no other option.

Sooooo does the Holy Ghost not count?

Being a ghost and wandering earth for all eternity would seem worse than any hell would

I don't know, being able to haunt people sounds pretty fun.

[dsheinem]

The problem, for me, is that the people who believe in ghosts, angels, etc. are often (not always) the same people...advocating that we ignore "bogus" scientific warnings about things like climate change

Actually, according to several surveys done on this, Atheists are actually the ones who are more likely to believe in paranormal phenomena like ghosts, bigfoot, aliens, etc.

I call bullshit. You're going to have to provide some links.

There's a link above that refutes this (a Gallup poll). I'm pretty sure he was talking out his ass on this point...