Atheism: Love it or Leave it? - Part 4

[Thundercrack85]

I'm not really buying the claims.

I mean, granted, there's some weird **** out there, but for a phenomena which allegedly happens frequently, and often in the same place (sometimes even limited to one specific room), no compelling evidence has come forward to my knowledge.

And this has been going on since... well, forever.

 

[enterthemadness]

I'm not really buying the claims.

I mean, granted, there's some weird **** out there, but for a phenomena which allegedly happens frequently, and often in the same place (sometimes even limited to one specific room), no compelling evidence has come forward to my knowledge.

And this has been going on since... well, forever.

Maybe some people see weird **** cause their brains are wired in a unique way...#conspiracy

 

[Lighthouse]

I'm not really buying the claims.

I mean, granted, there's some weird **** out there, but for a phenomena which allegedly happens frequently, and often in the same place (sometimes even limited to one specific room), no compelling evidence has come forward to my knowledge.

And this has been going on since... well, forever.

To me, weird **** is just unexplained ****. Centuries ago, opening up caskets of bloated corpses used to "prove" the existence of vampires.

 

[The Question]

I'm not really buying the claims.

I mean, granted, there's some weird **** out there, but for a phenomena which allegedly happens frequently, and often in the same place (sometimes even limited to one specific room), no compelling evidence has come forward to my knowledge.

And this has been going on since... well, forever.

Just playing Devil's Advocate here, but to be fair, any kind of phenomena dealing with something that has some level of consciousness (which ghosts may have if they do exist) is going to have more variables in it's behavior that might make it difficult to quantify.

Eddie Murphy talks about horror movies. It's from Delirious...

I actually have a criticism about ghosts that no one ever thinks of, yet if you think about it, it makes perfect sense...

Ghosts are supposed to be the essence/soul of a once-dead person.

Now, I think we can agree that inanimate objects, especially artificial objects, do not have souls, right?

So why in the hell are ghosts always wearing clothes?!? It literally does not make any sense. It violates the definition of what a ghost is supposed to be. It's stupid.

Hence, I think the vast majority of ghost-sighting stories can be dismissed for that reason alone to be honest.

The only way a ghost could be wearing clothes is if it's a poltergeist that can interact with the physical world. Otherwise, ghosts should technically be naked. Clothes do not have souls, so there is no way they could travel over with the dead human's soul.

Ghosts don't have bodies either, and yet you don't seem to have a problem with the idea of one walking around like a naked person.

The general conceit of Ghosts as they are portrayed and conceived is that the way they appear to the living is an illusion based on how they appeared in life.

 

[NateHevens]

Well, if a person dies in their clothes...the ghost could be wearing clothes...of course I can't say for sure...

How?

Think about it. According to tradition, it's only souls that can cross over. And yet, despite this, people were and are under the impression that soulless, artificial objects can also cross over, despite the fact that artificial objects don't have souls.

Clothes should not be a feature of ghosts.

According to shows on TV that supposedly explore such things, a ghost can make themselves look however they want. So I guess if a spirit had a favorite outfit....

The TV shows always dress it up, though. I'm talking about the historical superstition.

Ghosts are also supposed to be the spirits of those who died in traumatic and sudden circumstances where they're energy gets trapped in the mortal realm. Do their clothes do the same thing too? Do animals too?

There are different thoughts on animals, but no such thing should or could happen with clothes. At least animals are alive.

It makes more sense to have them as beings from another dimension. Then again if they appear as apparitions in clothing of the time period reflected in this dimension, what are the chances that they are from another dimension when an eternal number of possibilities for what they could look like and what they can exist as in the multiverse?

You mean another universe or realm. Dimensions are not places. They're measurements (height, length, width, time, etc).

Ghosts don't have bodies either, and yet you don't seem to have a problem with the idea of one walking around like a naked person.

The general conceit of Ghosts as they are portrayed and conceived is that the way they appear to the living is an illusion based on how they appeared in life.

Actually, that I can buy. The ghost of a human looking like that human is fine, since the soul is believed to be an imprint of ourselves. So when the ghost appears, it makes sense for the ghost to physically resemble who it was when it was alive.

In other words, it's not that the ghost has a body, but that it can resemble the body it inhabited before that body died when appearing in the natural realm... or something like that.

It should not be wearing clothes of any kind, however, unless it's a poltergeist or something that can interact with the physical environment and thus steal an outfit to wear, but then the outfit itself would be physical... not see-through or whatever.







For the record, I obviously do not believe in ghosts (or other supernatural things like demons, devils, angels, gods, etc). I don't believe we have a consciousness that is separate from our physical selves. I'm simply arguing that, in the case that supernatural ghosts as traditionally understood are real (and I don't think they are), the only way they could be wearing clothes is if they've somehow managed to interact with the physical world and are wearing a physical outfit that they stole or used to be theirs when they were alive.

 

[The Question]

Actually, that I can buy. The ghost of a human looking like that human is fine, since the soul is believed to be an imprint of ourselves. So when the ghost appears, it makes sense for the ghost to physically resemble who it was when it was alive.

In other words, it's not that the ghost has a body, but that it can resemble the body it inhabited before that body died when appearing in the natural realm... or something like that.

It should not be wearing clothes of any kind, however, unless it's a poltergeist or something that can interact with the physical environment and thus steal an outfit to wear, but then the outfit itself would be physical... not see-through or whatever.







For the record, I obviously do not believe in ghosts (or other supernatural things like demons, devils, angels, gods, etc). I don't believe we have a consciousness that is separate from our physical selves. I'm simply arguing that, in the case that supernatural ghosts as traditionally understood are real (and I don't think they are), the only way they could be wearing clothes is if they've somehow managed to interact with the physical world and are wearing a physical outfit that they stole or used to be theirs when they were alive.

That just seems like a really arbitrary distinction to make. We don't really know how ghosts work, so logicing out what does and doesn't make sense about them like this is kind of silly. Like, I could make the argument that because most people visualize themselves as being clothed that we'd see them clothed as ghosts, or whatever.

Like, I don't think anyone's ever thought that a ghost's pants were actually the ghost of a pair of pants. The general assumption is that everything you see is the ghost, and everything about what you see is some kind of projection or illusion that isn't really physically there.

 

[Lighthouse]

Religiosity slides worldwide, plummets in scandal-hit Ireland

 

[DarkSovereignty]

[YT]tfslY_AvhLw[/YT]

 

[Thundercrack85]

Just playing Devil's Advocate here, but to be fair, any kind of phenomena dealing with something that has some level of consciousness (which ghosts may have if they do exist) is going to have more variables in it's behavior that might make it difficult to quantify.

Actually most ghost stories to me sound like they're almost on a loop. Repetition. Hearing footsteps on a staircase. Only appearing at night. Doesn't seem very intelligent to me.

I see ghosts compared to UFO's often. But most UFO "incidents" are very brief. Most last a few minutes, an hour tops. But ghosts? Some of them have been in the same building for centuries. So, what's the excuse there?

Really I'd compare it more to the Loch Ness Monster. Lake monster that's been living in a fairly small lake for a century. Unless Nessie is smarter than the average plesiosaurus, we should be able to find her easily.

 

[NateHevens]

That just seems like a really arbitrary distinction to make. We don't really know how ghosts work, so logicing out what does and doesn't make sense about them like this is kind of silly. Like, I could make the argument that because most people visualize themselves as being clothed that we'd see them clothed as ghosts, or whatever.

It may be an arbitrary distinction, but it is not one that I've made. It's one that's been made by the people who've been believing this stuff for millenia. I'm simply taking the arbitrary extinction to a logical point that suggests that ghosts should be appearing naked, if the distinction is to be believed.

Like, I don't think anyone's ever thought that a ghost's pants were actually the ghost of a pair of pants. The general assumption is that everything you see is the ghost, and everything about what you see is some kind of projection or illusion that isn't really physically there.

That would make the ghost no better than a computer projection... might as well start looking for the projection equipment.

Really I'd compare it more to the Loch Ness Monster. Lake monster that's been living in a fairly small lake for a century. Unless Nessie is smarter than the average plesiosaurus, we should be able to find her easily.

Sorry to go even more off topic, here, but it turns out that the idea of Nessie being a Plesiosaur is not one held by most Nessie hunters and Scottish citizens. It appears that this is a uniquely American popularization of the concept.

Most hunters think something could be in the lake, but they think it could be anything, from a Welles catfish to an eel to a lost seal or whale or shark or something like that. So Nessie could be something that is, in fact, perfectly common in the ocean...

 

[moviedoors]

The "ghost wearing clothes" discussion is rather silly. I understand the mentality, but come on. First we must establish that ghosts are in anyway plausible, then we can talk about their fashion sense.

 

[enterthemadness]

The "ghost wearing clothes" discussion is rather silly. I understand the mentality, but come on. First we must establish that ghosts are in anyway plausible, then we can talk about their fashion sense.

but what about the hundred of thousands of eye witness reports, and uh, haunted places, and spooky places, and that pup named Scooby Doo?

of course we still haven't seen a real ghost video..or one that scientists can say is 100% ghost.

 

[moviedoors]

but what about the hundred of thousands of eye witness reports, and uh, haunted places, and spooky places, and that pup named Scooby Doo?

of course we still haven't seen a real ghost video..or one that scientists can say is 100% ghost.

You can stack cow patties a thousand miles high, it's still just a pile of ****.

 

[enterthemadness]

You can stack cow patties a thousand miles high, it's still just a pile of ****.

cow patties? You mean MUUUUUUUUUUD PIIIIIIIIIIIIES.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Sorry to go even more off topic, here, but it turns out that the idea of Nessie being a Plesiosaur is not one held by most Nessie hunters and Scottish citizens. It appears that this is a uniquely American popularization of the concept.

Most hunters think something could be in the lake, but they think it could be anything, from a Welles catfish to an eel to a lost seal or whale or shark or something like that. So Nessie could be something that is, in fact, perfectly common in the ocean...

Actually, I've been there (it is quite spooky), most of the local merchandise is of a Plesiosaur. The local "Museum of Nessie" even has a pretty cool looking "reconstruction" of Nessie as a Plesiosaur which floats.

Makes for a cool picture. Nessie being a Plesiosaur goes all the way back to the 1930's, with the Surgeon's Photograph (which they have on display prominently), as well as a few other photographs of a Plesiosaur-like creature.

Then again, I doubt most Scottish people believe in Nessie, but it does bring in the tourists.

 

[8wid]

If they're in North America they should go after Ogopogo or Champ instead he has a better chance of existing.

They only cryptids I give credibility to that might exist still is the Thylacine living in the untouched rainforests of Australia.

 

[NateHevens]

Actually, I've been there (it is quite spooky), most of the local merchandise is of a Plesiosaur. The local "Museum of Nessie" even has a pretty cool looking "reconstruction" of Nessie as a Plesiosaur which floats.

Makes for a cool picture. Nessie being a Plesiosaur goes all the way back to the 1930's, with the Surgeon's Photograph (which they have on display prominently), as well as a few other photographs of a Plesiosaur-like creature.

Then again, I doubt most Scottish people believe in Nessie, but it does bring in the tourists.

Tourism is right. That is geared mostly for the non-Scottish tourists. It's outside of Scotland where Nessie is seen as a Plesiosaur. Most people actually living around the area do think something's there, but think it's more likely to be a lost ocean animal, or even a Wels Catfish, than a long-extinct dinosaur.

Here's Wiki's article on the Loch Ness, specifically the explanations...

 

[8wid]

Then again I also hate when historic monuments pretend to be haunted and then actually have a film crew make a movie about it when there is no scientific evidence for such a claim. Such nonprofits should have their status stripped by the IRS as an educational organization.

HAUNTING OF WHALEY HOUSE TRAILER

 

[Thundercrack85]

Tourism is right. That is geared mostly for the non-Scottish tourists. It's outside of Scotland where Nessie is seen as a Plesiosaur. Most people actually living around the area do think something's there, but think it's more likely to be a lost ocean animal, or even a Wels Catfish, than a long-extinct dinosaur.

Here's Wiki's article on the Loch Ness, specifically the explanations...

Most popular theory when I was there was a piece of oddly shaped driftwood.

 

[superpower]

Sorry it has taken me so long to reply.

This is in response to the question child asked about what I meant by natural slavery.

First, when I say "natural" what I mean is there are two extreme states. Natural or good and unnatural or bad. As you pointed out, there is much gray area but that does not mean that we allow for ourselves to be so blinded that we no longer see a clear distinction between what is right and what is wrong.

My definition of slavery is this... Any time an individuals will ( as in what that person wants to do) must be sacrificed.

When I said natural slavery what I meant was the way in which we are all dependant on each other in order to maintain our lives on a daily basis.

Our life styles require many of us to do things may not want to do at that moment ie.. make it to work everyday and on time. So many examples of this but in essence natural slavery is an individuals willing sacrifice of free will.

The only time an individual should loose there free will is if there actions have a negative impact on the freedom of others ie... If I steal your things then you loose the freedom to use those things. So on and so forth.

Unnatural slavery is when an individual, innocent of violating another persons freedom, looses their ability to manifest their will ie... I don't want to be here but you wont let me leave or I want to eat but you force me to work. This type of slavery is based on fear and throughout history it has evolved with the times. So much so that it has been accepted and looked at as normal, at least for a time, in most of, if not all of its forms.

I don't think anyone could give me more than a handful of items or concepts that began with "evil" intentions. Yet there are those few people that will take the most pure thing and find a way to cause pain. So to dismiss the bible because it has been used to cause pain is tantamount to dismissing all things because I can find a way to cause pain with just about anything you can name.

What's my point? I can't think of stereotypical slavery when I read what is written in the bible. Can we really compare today or the last thousand years to what was going on in a time before written history? Also the book was compiled by men over thousands of years. Errors are bound to occur. God is described many times and if the bible says something that contradicts His character then it should be questioned.

The bible isn't about the wrath of God. It's about us. We are 99% alike, not just genetically but mentally as well. We live in a world where our leaders understand and prey on this likeness knowing that we will mostly do what we are told to continue their status quo. Those are the type of leaders that have most of Gods wrath in the bible, but this stuff never gets discussed in churches or anywhere else for that matter.

It's all about the post death angle in religion and that really limits "God" and His Word.

We will never have q utopia but with a better understanding of good, evil, freedom, and ourselves in general I believe we can be a heck of a lot closer than we are today.

 

[Quasar]

Ghost clothes! lol I love it!

 

[enterthemadness]

I should open up a cafe press store called 'Ghost Clothes' Make money off the people that watch Ghost Hunters and that stuff...and I wouldn't share any of the bling bling with you guys...I'm one-way.

 

[childeroland]

First, when I say "natural" what I mean is there are two extreme states. Natural or good and unnatural or bad. As you pointed out, there is much gray area but that does not mean that we allow for ourselves to be so blinded that we no longer see a clear distinction between what is right and what is wrong.

But how do you define these "extreme states"? In any event, life is very rarely able to be simplified into any extreme, and right and wrong.

My definition of slavery is this... Any time an individuals will ( as in what that person wants to do) must be sacrificed.

But that can be a definition of duty or anything else you just don't want to do but can't; far too vague a definition for "slavery." Some of the precepts upheld in the Bible and other religious texts can be defined as "slavery" using your definition. And what if one person's will is to do wrong to another person and to do right he/she must sacrifice that will? Is that person living in slavery? How exactly do you define the "good" or "natural" kind, and why would that be called "slavery"?

When I said natural slavery what I meant was the way in which we are all dependant on each other in order to maintain our lives on a daily basis.

But you said it was a "form of punishment similar to jail"? How does that jive with it also being the way we depend on each other to maintain our lives and willingly sacrificing our free will?

The only time an individual should loose there free will is if there actions have a negative impact on the freedom of others ie... If I steal your things then you loose the freedom to use those things. So on and so forth.

Obviously. But any moral person would agree to that--why would we need scripture to tell us that? And how does it jive with stories in these scriptures -- say, the Bible -- where God sanctions His Chosen people taking land from, say, the Amalekites and Caananites? And if He sanctioned these things, how could we rely on scriptures supposedly filled with His teachings?

I don't think anyone could give me more than a handful of items or concepts that began with "evil" intentions. Yet there are those few people that will take the most pure thing and find a way to cause pain. So to dismiss the bible because it has been used to cause pain is tantamount to dismissing all things because I can find a way to cause pain with just about anything you can name.

Due respect, this is a cop out. What were the good intentions behind God having Saul put his enemies "under the ban"? Or the sacrifice of Jepthath's daughter? Or the Israelites taking Caananite land? Or the guy who let his prostitute be raped then cut her up in pieces and distributed her all over the land as an "object lesson". Or women's second-class in Paul's church? Or the Bible's at best contradictory stance on slavery? Or the Jews in John with their "his blood be upon our heads"? What was the "pure thing" there, and if the scripture can be turned to such evil ends, why would we use them to learn anything?

What's my point? I can't think of stereotypical slavery when I read what is written in the bible. Can we really compare today or the last thousand years to what was going on in a time before written history? Also the book was compiled by men over thousands of years. Errors are bound to occur. God is described many times and if the bible says something that contradicts His character then it should be questioned.

What do you mean by stereotypical slavery? There are many examples of slavery in the Bible, and as a whole the Book does not condemn it. For example: Exodus 21 7-11, Leviticus 25: 47-55, Deut 15, Deuteronomy 21:10-14, Exodus 21:6, Exodus 20, Ephesians 6:5, the Covenant Code, Colossians 3:22, 1 Peter 2:18 ("Slaves, obey your masters"), 1 Timothy 6:1, Titus 2:9-10 ("Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior.")etc. What do you think these slaves and masters were doing that would make a difference between stereotypical and the atypical kind, whatever that is?

The bible isn't about the wrath of God.

Tell that to all the people God had His servants kill--when He wasn't doing it Himself. And again, those Amalekites, Caananites, Philistines, the people of Jericho, etc.

It's about us.

Then why do we need such a contradictory set of documents from an ancient era? Why can't we progress with our own morality?

We live in a world where our leaders understand and prey on this likeness knowing that we will mostly do what we are told to continue their status quo.

Some of those leaders used the very scriptures we're talking about and were able to because of the contents of those scriptures. So why would we need those scriptures to help solve this problem?

Those are the type of leaders that have most of Gods wrath in the bible, but this stuff never gets discussed in churches or anywhere else for that matter.

Really? Like all those Caananites, etc God has His people kill? The Egyptian first born He slaughters? Or the Caesar of whom Jesus says, "Give unto Caesar what is Caesars, and to God what is Gods" while Rome oppressed His homeland?

It's all about the post death angle in religion and that really limits "God" and His Word.

Don't know what this means.

We will never have q utopia but with a better understanding of good, evil, freedom, and ourselves in general I believe we can be a heck of a lot closer than we are today.

I couldn't agree more. By why rely on ancient scriptures and religions to accomplish this? How do we morally progress trying to salvage contradictory moral codes millenia-old?

 

[Thundercrack85]

What in God's name are you two going on about?

 

[childeroland]

superpower maintains that God has been trying to teach humankind to be moral through his scriptures (by which I mean the Bible--he says others but has not cited any) and that it is people's fault for not understanding this. My stance is that these so-called scriptures are a large part of the problem, being too morally dubious themselves, and that people need to move on from them if we are ever to evolve morally.