My hypothesis was implictly stated, and is the anti-thesis to yours.
Mine was one that without religion humans would be less of a danger to themselves than they are now.
In a "world with god" morals have been created by god and are still not followed all the time. Thus in a world without god we would no better or no worse. While your claim is that we may be worse off than we are now, your argument rests on the claim that only a world with god can have morals.
While I can't prove my point, because we don't live in a world without religion, the crux of my argument uses evidence of a world with religion to support my point--while yours has no evidence. Tit for tat, I think my argument has +1 to it's power when I state that religion has been used as a justification for harm in many situations. Lack of religion is a non-entity, and thus couldn't be used in a world without religion as an excuse for harm, simply, because it wouldn't exist.
In Sum, if I accept your hypothesis, I claim that in spite of religion being necessary to create morals, its instrumentally used as a ideological tool to also harm people as well, which could not happen in a world without religion. A theory of less harm, one less justification or excuse for harm.
I'm saying neither of us have an answer we can definitively prove, but the balance, even by a bit, rests on my side. --> You say we would be a bit worse off, I saw we would be a bit better, but I also add in the excuse of religion as justification for harm.
I understand that and the the strong possibility of removing all religious extremists right away. But I easily doubt that's where its ripple effect ends.
And that is why I came up with my hypotheses, which may not happen right away the moment you "erase" religion, but rather as something that could eventually turn out as generations go by.
I'm sorry but I don't remember claiming to know god at all. Didn't I just present an argument that concludes humans cannot know and understand everything?
Yes you did, as if that mattered in the slightest.
online predator;48237 said:
Premises 1 and 2 are just that - premises.
Really all you have there is a collection of mostly unrelated premises. You haven't linked them into a cogent argument, or any argument for that matter. We're talking about how to establish premise 1. Try to stay on point.
online predator;48237 said:
In addition, Science has been wrong numerous times before, the same way that some biblical claims nowadays are considered unacceptable. As an example, religions have become the reason for the death of numerous lives before the same way that a scientific advantage over other countries can threaten and have cost lives.
Right, science wasn't correct about everything right from the start so we might as well pack it up and go home. The fact that science corrects itself is its best attribute. Science moves forward. That's why while religion was busy deciding how many angels could fit on the head of a pin, science was subverting the geocentric universe. Yes, science has been wrong before and it will be again. You've been wrong before too; should I ignore you altogether because of that? Does the fact that you've been wrong make anyone else right? No and no. And let's not forget, religion has been wrong plenty. In fact at the very least all religions but one are completely wrong. Science has a long history of correcting stupid religious beliefs; the converse is not true.
online predator;48237 said:
As of this point, science does not have the means to disprove the existence of anything supernatural, let alone the existence of any of the gods being worshiped by religions.
Stop. Stop right fucking there. Stating that it is impossible to prove a negative doesn't make your case. No one is under any obligation to disprove anything. The burden of proof rests squarely on the shoulders of the person making the claim. Can you disprove the existence of the tooth fairy? No. Unicorns? No. Literally anything at all? No. Does this mean that it's a wash, and the two sides are on equal footing? No, god damn it. Stop asserting that it does. You don't use this bullshit standard in any other area of your life, don't introduce it here either.
online predator;48237 said:
Like I said before, if you're going to live your life with strong faith on unproven scientific explanations that are proposed by scientists who make mistakes too (just because they have been right before), how are you different from the lot that puts a strong faith in a supernatural being from a book that teaches wisdom, morality, hope, virtues, etc?
This is like saying that because I'm a really suspicious person I'm just like someone who is too trusting, because I put too much trust in suspicion. In other words it's stupid bullshit. Cut it out.
online predator;48237 said:
Faith is the belief of something unproven, which is why faithful people are their own greatest weakness.
No argument there.
Edit: Just because I thought this was funny.
What happens if the ten commandments remain unheard of? What would have influenced leaders to stop slavery and see everybody else as their equal?
We'd still have the Code of Hammurabi to guide us without anyone needing to believe in Ishtar. As for slavery, whatever gave you the idea that the ten commandments had anything to do with it? Both testaments take an overwhelmingly positive view of slavery; there isn't a single passage in either denouncing it as a practice. The best that can be said is that there are some things about not treating your slaves too badly (you can beat them all you want as long as you don't take out an eye). The scientific ideas of common descent and the understanding of DNA have proven that human beings are not objectively better or worse than one another because of race. Now if you had to guess which areas of the world were most afflicted with racism, would you say it was the least religious or the most religious?
Really all you have there is a collection of mostly unrelated premises. You haven't linked them into a cogent argument, or any argument for that matter. We're talking about how to establish premise 1. Try to stay on point.
And you call your 10 list of arguments perfect? I just copied and pasted your first two arguments and made my own. How can you not understand that people cannot know everything because we're bounded to how our senses conditioned our mind. Therefore, there is that possibility that humans can never have the means to fully grasp the possible existence of such a being.
If you establish omniscience, how the fuck do you think science, or any other study, logic, reasoning, can explain how an omniscient being knows your feelings, what decisions you'll make, what tomorrow will be, etc? If you establish omnipotence, how do you know we're not being limited from being more than humans? Or that logic , reasoning and common sense are not being limited? And yet I'm changing topic? Seems to me you're getting your ass kicked.
I'm not claiming anything new, I'm just saying what people, I'm sure more sensible than you are, have reasoned out in acknowledging the possibility of a supernatural being. He may or may not care about his creations at all. He may not exactly be what any bible says he is. Who knows?
I regret having to explain this to you but the reason why santa clause, tooth fairy, unicorn and all that can be disproved is because there is evidence that backtracks to their origins as being myths, fictional character from some children's book, legneds, etc. Whereas the existence of a supernatural being, even after stripping the pages of any religion's bible, will remain debatable, if not forever, for a very long time because once you figure out say an origin of something you can't help but ask where the origins of that came from, and the origins of that... and so on. If, say, the time even comes when a supreme being is proved to be true, let's not hesitate to ask where this supreme being came from.
The way I see it now, you're just being stubborn, and refuse to listen to the opposite side, just because they don't agree with you. This isn't a debate anymore, it's something else. Your goal is not to win your side, but to make a mockery of the opposite. It's exhausting trying to argue with motherfuckers like you because you refuse to understand and accept the other side's opinions.
And you call your 10 list of arguments perfect? I just copied and pasted your first two arguments and made my own. How can you not understand that people cannot know everything because we're bounded to how our senses conditioned our mind. Therefore, there is that possibility that humans can never have the means to fully grasp the possible existence of such a being.
I understand it, it just doesn't matter. I'm attacking very specific claims, you're defending some abstractions of your own devising. So far you've brilliantly demonstrated that we cannot comprehend the incomprehensible. Bravo?
online predator;48336 said:
If you establish omniscience, how the fuck do you think science, or any other study, logic, reasoning, can explain how an omniscient being knows your feelings, what decisions you'll make, what tomorrow will be, etc? If you establish omnipotence, how do you know we're not being limited from being more than humans? Or that logic , reasoning and common sense are not being limited?
No one has established either of those things; that's the issue. Pay attention. It's all well and good to propose that such a being could exist and we maybe wouldn't know it. Religious people claim to know the name of their god, his nature, whether or not he wants you to be gay, how many wives you're allowed to have, do you see how this progresses beyond the abstraction you're dealing with? I'm explicitly dealing with actual religious claims. Your line of reasoning is a conversation stopper.
online predator;48336 said:
And yet I'm changing topic? Seems to me you're getting your ass kicked.
How quixotic of you.
online predator;48336 said:
He may or may not care about his creations at all. He may not exactly be what any bible says he is. Who knows?
Again, this is every bit as true of any other thing anyone could dream up. You're as sure about the existence and nature of god as you are about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Given that you can't be sure, what is the assumption that you act under regarding the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
online predator;48336 said:
I regret having to explain this to you but the reason why santa clause, tooth fairy, unicorn and all that can be disproved is because there is evidence that backtracks to their origins as being myths, fictional character from some children's book, legneds, etc.
I have some news about religion that may surprise you!
online predator;48336 said:
Whereas the existence of a supernatural being, even after stripping the pages of any religion's bible, will remain debatable, if not forever, for a very long time because once you figure out say an origin of something you can't help but ask where the origins of that came from, and the origins of that... and so on. If, say, the time even comes when a supreme being is proved to be true, let's not hesitate to ask where this supreme being came from.
The way I see it now, you're just being stubborn, and refuse to listen to the opposite side, just because they don't agree with you. This isn't a debate anymore, it's something else. Your goal is not to win your side, but to make a mockery of the opposite. It's exhausting trying to argue with motherfuckers like you because you refuse to understand and accept the other side's opinions.
Yes, the person who stated not only that they could be convinced but how is the one being stubborn. I'm exercising restraint about what I believe. I wait until I have evidence, and construct my views based on it. I feel I understand the other side's opinions pretty well, I just don't accept them because they're based on faith and faith doesn't work. Reason does.
I keep saying that! Ghosts, homeopathics, dowsing, divination, precognition, telepathy, telekinesis, astrology, whatever. I want to hear all of it. You'll notice that the people going to bat for theism here have failed to meet the one criterion I set from the beginning: Make a specific claim. I like the other stuff because while it's still really vague, it's easier to get specific.
But no it's just a bunch of morons telling me I "can't know everything" despite my constant agreement.
boy... was this a long thread to skim through. first off, high five to all the history majors in this thread :smile:
some points i'd like to offer as an observation. it is not only christians who killed "non-believers" during the course of history. islam, promoted the waging of "jihad", a holy war if you will, against infidels (non-believers). also, i believe you are not jewish if your mother is not jewish (someone can correct me on this cause im not too sure on it). there are a buncha things about eating kosher foods in all three "religions of the book".
so...what i'm trying to get at is that every religion is some what fundamentally flawed according to TODAYS standards however, during the period which they were introduced i believe that they existed as logical venues for people.
sometimes, religion is just comforting... for me anyways, when people die on you sometimes you find yourself talkin to god. and its not always praise or good will but questions of anger and hurt. like why did you have to let them die? of course there is a logical scientific explanation for the cause of death in people but sometimes people become grief stricken to a point beyond logical comprehension. btw i was born christian (that is to say that i was born into a christian family and grew up with christian beliefs) but i dont really go to church or perform the eucharist. guess that makes me a crummy christian? ;)
@bufli: actually vlad DID stop the muslims from invading... untill they put vlad's brother at the head of the army and then made a gigantic siege on his castle. during this time, his wife commited suicide by throwing herself off the ramparts and vlad vowed to return and have his vengence. he escaped via a secret tunnel dug into the mountain side of his last fortress stronghold and escaped with the help of local villagers.
also...
FerrousWheel;47987 said:
Also no one gets to use religion as their paranormal belief except IVT because his version of god is essentially a cross between Hitler and Dracula and I think that counts.
seems like its totally directed at IVT in my opinion. you could have merely substituted "christians" for IVT and i'm sure the result could have been different. i dont really mind IVT on the forums as there are and were people who act in a worse manner than him.
on another note,
my paranormal belief is that ghosts do exist. i didnt read over the other thread but i guess i can post it here.
my paranormal belief is that ghosts do exist. i didnt read over the other thread but i guess i can post it here.
To briefly address your other stuff: I wasn't even talking about things Christians did in real life- I don't really play favorites when it comes to "most murderous religion". The Hindus are often overlooked I find. My point was that the violence is inherent to the religions- that this supposedly omnibenevolent god is actually draconian and bloodthisty.
The crack at IVT was a casual snipe that turned into a gigantic derail.
As for comfort: I'm aware of this, but my concern is with the truth and obviously what's comforting isn't always true. I was very specific about my arguments. I say again: Even if one denomination is really talking to god, everyone else is talking to thin air. And again: Every single religion that has ever existed is wrong with a maximum of one exception. Every religious person claims that their particular group is that exception. That's a pretty extravagant claim.
And finally, we get to talk about ghosts. I like this one a lot, I liked it in the other thread too. I'll try to be nicer this time around. First I want you to clearly articulate exactly what it is you believe. So:
• What are ghosts? • What do they do? • How can you tell a genuine ghost from an imaginary one? • What should the presence of ghosts mean in terms of our daily lives?
The first two are the most important to me. I want to know exactly what the word "ghost" means to you. As I stated in the other thread, I suspect that it isn't a great deal and that's partly my point. But if you have a detailed and specific claim by all means lay it on me. Let's rerail this thing.
to me ghosts are spirits, a reminisence of the dead walkin the earth because theres something unfinished in their lives.
FerrousWheel;48395 said:
• What do they do?
provide a reminder, or act out their vengence ;)
FerrousWheel;48395 said:
• How can you tell a genuine ghost from an imaginary one?
dunno, i've never seen a genuine ghost before. i know the imaginary ones cause i see them once a year with blankets and eye holes. i make sure to give them the crappy raison boxes while i give the vampires and witches chocolate ;)
FerrousWheel;48395 said:
• What should the presence of ghosts mean in terms of our daily lives?
they serve as a reminder, i guess a hope. life beyond death?
to me ghosts are spirits, a reminisence of the dead walkin the earth because theres something unfinished in their lives.
Okay, good. So given that all of our senses can be directly explained and observed by scientific means, and are inextricably tied to physical processes, are ghosts (being incorporeal) devoid of them? If so, what is their alternative mechanism of perception and what from what evidence have you inferred their faculties of perception and memory?
Additionally: Almost no one has the opportunity to finish all of their business before they die. Do they all become ghosts? If not, what or how much must be unfinished in order to assure ghosthood?
hikin;48402 said:
provide a reminder, or act out their vengence ;)
By what means? If I were to take revenge on someone so badly that I reached out from beyond the grave I imagine I'd want to do more than cause some gentle breezes and slam a few doors. What is the extent to which ghosts can interact with the physical world, and what is there means of doing so?
hikin;48402 said:
dunno, i've never seen a genuine ghost before.
What's your basis for believing in their existence then? This is not meant to suggest that actually seeing a ghost is the only potentially valid reason for believing in them, it is not a loaded question.
hikin;48402 said:
i know the imaginary ones cause i see them once a year with blankets and eye holes. i make sure to give them the crappy raison boxes while i give the vampires and witches chocolate ;)
So are we to believe that every perceived ghost outside of a haloween costume is the real thing? If this is the case, why can some of them be fended off by caulking window frames and repairing floorboards and stairs?
hikin;48402 said:
they serve as a reminder, i guess a hope. life beyond death?
Okay. If they serve as reminders of the individuals they represent, what are the criteria for deciding whose memory requires paranormal attention and whose doesn't? If they serve to indicate the existence of an afterlife, what information about this afterlife can we glean from their actions here on earth?
Finally, why do ghosts universally and presumably intentionally evade scientific detection and analysis? If their purpose is to send a message, why deny it to anyone who simply turns the lights on? If they do in fact interact with the physical world, then this interaction is measurable. If they can perceive and convey information of their own accord, this could also be tested easily and conclusively. This would revolutionize science and open the door to an entirely new branch of study– one with the potential to ultimately conquer death. Why have ghosts seemingly deliberately thwarted all efforts to fully understand them, or even establish their reality?
That's fine, you can read it in the morning or ignore it completely. The ultimate question for me is simply this: Why do you believe? What is it that convinces you?
At best this is saying you can't prove a negative. Ghosts aren't nothing, they're something. They're a thing with a lot of definite attributes, that's what I'm trying to establish here.
You obviously don't believe everything you hear, you have to choose somehow. Understanding the limits of your own knowledge is really good, and essential to science, but it isn't a method of choosing what you should or should not believe.
The quote is nice and very wise-sounding but it isn't literally true and no one here is presuming to know everything. I'm hoping we can move past arguments from ignorance.
you've only explained the contextual meaning of the quote.. the idea behind it is that even if i am unable to prove with certainty (which is what is being asked here) that paranormal beings/creatures do exist.. i am confident that my beliefs are sound based on the limited knowledge i have.. you can consult wikipedia for more explanation on the quote..
why... you may ask that i hold such beliefs.. because i have had experiences of it.. i suppose the reason you're asking about people's paranormal beliefs is because you haven't experienced it first hand and thus do not understand what it's like.. i do wish (without ill intentions) that you may come across a paranormal situation some day so you may appreciate the experience.. but that's not something i or anyone can help with..
and the limits of knowledge do determine what people choose to believe and not believe.. well.. atleast i assume those who are reasonable beings would.. not all scientists agree to the existence of extra-terrestrial life forms but that's because there's hasn't been concrete evidence of their existence to warrant a widespread acceptance.. our knowledge is still limited in this area... resulting in conflicting views on this matter..
the same thing could be said with paranormal beliefs.. one does not need to have the knowledge to make an experience a paranormal one.. because arguably we don't have the concrete knowledge there to make sense of what it is aside from the experiential aspect of it...so how do you propose anyone here to explain to you their paranormal beliefs when none of us are equipped with the knowledge of what exactly is a paranormal creature?
essentially.. what you're asking is someone to explain to you what they do not know but have only experienced from their senses.. you can keep giving us questions and some of us will try to answer them to the best of what our limited knowledge can offer.. but ultimately all we can give you is a recollection of our experiences and not the explanation that you seek.. it is not arguments or ignorance that we need to move past.. knowledge is required for those 2 things to occur... we simply just don't have the grounds to formulate an argument on something we don't know.. let alone be ignorant of it..
lol and yes... "De omnibus dubitandum" is a viable answer to this question.. =)
There are no such thing as a good or bad religion. Only good and bad people who create the religion. Religion is something that's a result of people wanting to have some purpose in life that they believe in. It just so happens that some evil people commit evils in the name of religion.
While it is not necessary for one to follow a religion to have a purpose in life, many people agree with the teachings of a certain religion, thus they choose to live by it (but some just grew up in it and believe in it due to habit).
So in the end, what do I think is the most dangerous and evil? Evil humans. Even if there is a world without religion, evil humans will make the world a terrible place for others.
--------------------
On another topic, I think there are many things that we just have the concept of, but have no exact knowledge of it.
Like the famous sorites argument: What is a heap of sand? or What is a flock of birds?
We obviously have the concept of these things, know when to use the terms, and know that these things exist, but we cannot describe them exactly. So maybe people who have the concept of ghosts in their minds are like the same. They just know what a ghost is and that they exist, but cannot describe exactly what it is.
Through rigorous training- the details of which usually goes unexplained- humans can unlock a set of powers which come in nine (and a half) "levels."
The half comes from so-called "zero-eth level" powers: those which produce remarkable effect but have little or no impact on the world beyond the subjective.
Each power level is more significant than the last, ranging from rays of frost to flight to the stopping of time. A notably exception to this power scale is the "transformation" powers which are totally OP.
People are capable of utilizing these powers a number of times a day based on their intelligence (or charisma) and level of experience...
you've only explained the contextual meaning of the quote.. the idea behind it is that even if i am unable to prove with certainty (which is what is being asked here) that paranormal beings/creatures do exist.. i am confident that my beliefs are sound based on the limited knowledge i have.. you can consult wikipedia for more explanation on the quote..
I'm arguing against holding certainty as a standard. People seem to be saying that because nothing can be proven with utter certainty, beliefs that are supported by little or no evidence are just as valid as those with a factual basis. What I want to illustrate is that the standard you apply to paranormal beliefs differs from the standard you apply to everything else.
siuying;48474 said:
why... you may ask that i hold such beliefs.. because i have had experiences of it.. i do wish (without ill intentions) that you may come across a paranormal situation some day so you may appreciate the experience.. but that's not something i or anyone can help with..
Experience is flawed though. Demonstrably and profoundly so. Uri Geller is a proven fraud- he's been caught cheating many times. He does nothing but standard mentalist's tricks, yet many people have been completely convinced by their experiences of his deception. They have been fooled, and they're doing most of the work to fool themselves. Unwittingly of course; smart people are the easiest to deceive in fact.
I'll try another angle: There must be some paranormal claims in which you do not believe. Horoscopes, crop circles, reiki, faith healing, whatever. The people who believe in these things have had experiences just as convincing as yours, and yet are mistaken in their beliefs. Why do you believe you are incapable of such error?
siuying;48474 said:
lol and yes... "De omnibus dubitandum" is a viable answer to this question.. =)
It's not an answer to anything but it's very good advice. What bothers me is that the people offering it here aren't following it–– everyone arguing in favor of paranormal beliefs is doing so with absolute trust in their own ability to accurately perceive and interpret reality. This is absolutely the furthest thing from following your own advice.
By all means doubt everything- especially yourself.
Edit:
Shi2;48482 said:
There are no such thing as a good or bad religion.
To steal yet another example from Sam Harris: The more extremist you become as a Muslim the more violent you become. The more extremist you become as a Jain, the less violent you become. The content of the belief matters, and not all beliefs are morally neutral or equal.
Comments
Mine was one that without religion humans would be less of a danger to themselves than they are now.
In a "world with god" morals have been created by god and are still not followed all the time. Thus in a world without god we would no better or no worse. While your claim is that we may be worse off than we are now, your argument rests on the claim that only a world with god can have morals.
While I can't prove my point, because we don't live in a world without religion, the crux of my argument uses evidence of a world with religion to support my point--while yours has no evidence. Tit for tat, I think my argument has +1 to it's power when I state that religion has been used as a justification for harm in many situations. Lack of religion is a non-entity, and thus couldn't be used in a world without religion as an excuse for harm, simply, because it wouldn't exist.
In Sum, if I accept your hypothesis, I claim that in spite of religion being necessary to create morals, its instrumentally used as a ideological tool to also harm people as well, which could not happen in a world without religion. A theory of less harm, one less justification or excuse for harm.
I'm saying neither of us have an answer we can definitively prove, but the balance, even by a bit, rests on my side. --> You say we would be a bit worse off, I saw we would be a bit better, but I also add in the excuse of religion as justification for harm.
And that is why I came up with my hypotheses, which may not happen right away the moment you "erase" religion, but rather as something that could eventually turn out as generations go by.
Right, science wasn't correct about everything right from the start so we might as well pack it up and go home. The fact that science corrects itself is its best attribute. Science moves forward. That's why while religion was busy deciding how many angels could fit on the head of a pin, science was subverting the geocentric universe. Yes, science has been wrong before and it will be again. You've been wrong before too; should I ignore you altogether because of that? Does the fact that you've been wrong make anyone else right? No and no. And let's not forget, religion has been wrong plenty. In fact at the very least all religions but one are completely wrong. Science has a long history of correcting stupid religious beliefs; the converse is not true. Stop. Stop right fucking there. Stating that it is impossible to prove a negative doesn't make your case. No one is under any obligation to disprove anything. The burden of proof rests squarely on the shoulders of the person making the claim. Can you disprove the existence of the tooth fairy? No. Unicorns? No. Literally anything at all? No. Does this mean that it's a wash, and the two sides are on equal footing? No, god damn it. Stop asserting that it does. You don't use this bullshit standard in any other area of your life, don't introduce it here either.
This is like saying that because I'm a really suspicious person I'm just like someone who is too trusting, because I put too much trust in suspicion. In other words it's stupid bullshit. Cut it out. No argument there.
Edit: Just because I thought this was funny. We'd still have the Code of Hammurabi to guide us without anyone needing to believe in Ishtar. As for slavery, whatever gave you the idea that the ten commandments had anything to do with it? Both testaments take an overwhelmingly positive view of slavery; there isn't a single passage in either denouncing it as a practice. The best that can be said is that there are some things about not treating your slaves too badly (you can beat them all you want as long as you don't take out an eye). The scientific ideas of common descent and the understanding of DNA have proven that human beings are not objectively better or worse than one another because of race. Now if you had to guess which areas of the world were most afflicted with racism, would you say it was the least religious or the most religious?
If you establish omniscience, how the fuck do you think science, or any other study, logic, reasoning, can explain how an omniscient being knows your feelings, what decisions you'll make, what tomorrow will be, etc? If you establish omnipotence, how do you know we're not being limited from being more than humans? Or that logic , reasoning and common sense are not being limited? And yet I'm changing topic? Seems to me you're getting your ass kicked.
I'm not claiming anything new, I'm just saying what people, I'm sure more sensible than you are, have reasoned out in acknowledging the possibility of a supernatural being. He may or may not care about his creations at all. He may not exactly be what any bible says he is. Who knows?
I regret having to explain this to you but the reason why santa clause, tooth fairy, unicorn and all that can be disproved is because there is evidence that backtracks to their origins as being myths, fictional character from some children's book, legneds, etc. Whereas the existence of a supernatural being, even after stripping the pages of any religion's bible, will remain debatable, if not forever, for a very long time because once you figure out say an origin of something you can't help but ask where the origins of that came from, and the origins of that... and so on. If, say, the time even comes when a supreme being is proved to be true, let's not hesitate to ask where this supreme being came from.
The way I see it now, you're just being stubborn, and refuse to listen to the opposite side, just because they don't agree with you. This isn't a debate anymore, it's something else. Your goal is not to win your side, but to make a mockery of the opposite. It's exhausting trying to argue with motherfuckers like you because you refuse to understand and accept the other side's opinions.
Yes, the person who stated not only that they could be convinced but how is the one being stubborn. I'm exercising restraint about what I believe. I wait until I have evidence, and construct my views based on it. I feel I understand the other side's opinions pretty well, I just don't accept them because they're based on faith and faith doesn't work. Reason does.
But no it's just a bunch of morons telling me I "can't know everything" despite my constant agreement.
some points i'd like to offer as an observation. it is not only christians who killed "non-believers" during the course of history. islam, promoted the waging of "jihad", a holy war if you will, against infidels (non-believers). also, i believe you are not jewish if your mother is not jewish (someone can correct me on this cause im not too sure on it). there are a buncha things about eating kosher foods in all three "religions of the book".
so...what i'm trying to get at is that every religion is some what fundamentally flawed according to TODAYS standards however, during the period which they were introduced i believe that they existed as logical venues for people.
sometimes, religion is just comforting... for me anyways, when people die on you sometimes you find yourself talkin to god. and its not always praise or good will but questions of anger and hurt. like why did you have to let them die? of course there is a logical scientific explanation for the cause of death in people but sometimes people become grief stricken to a point beyond logical comprehension. btw i was born christian (that is to say that i was born into a christian family and grew up with christian beliefs) but i dont really go to church or perform the eucharist. guess that makes me a crummy christian? ;)
@bufli: actually vlad DID stop the muslims from invading... untill they put vlad's brother at the head of the army and then made a gigantic siege on his castle. during this time, his wife commited suicide by throwing herself off the ramparts and vlad vowed to return and have his vengence. he escaped via a secret tunnel dug into the mountain side of his last fortress stronghold and escaped with the help of local villagers.
also... seems like its totally directed at IVT in my opinion. you could have merely substituted "christians" for IVT and i'm sure the result could have been different. i dont really mind IVT on the forums as there are and were people who act in a worse manner than him.
on another note,
my paranormal belief is that ghosts do exist. i didnt read over the other thread but i guess i can post it here.
The crack at IVT was a casual snipe that turned into a gigantic derail.
As for comfort: I'm aware of this, but my concern is with the truth and obviously what's comforting isn't always true. I was very specific about my arguments. I say again: Even if one denomination is really talking to god, everyone else is talking to thin air. And again: Every single religion that has ever existed is wrong with a maximum of one exception. Every religious person claims that their particular group is that exception. That's a pretty extravagant claim.
And finally, we get to talk about ghosts. I like this one a lot, I liked it in the other thread too. I'll try to be nicer this time around. First I want you to clearly articulate exactly what it is you believe. So:
• What are ghosts?
• What do they do?
• How can you tell a genuine ghost from an imaginary one?
• What should the presence of ghosts mean in terms of our daily lives?
The first two are the most important to me. I want to know exactly what the word "ghost" means to you. As I stated in the other thread, I suspect that it isn't a great deal and that's partly my point. But if you have a detailed and specific claim by all means lay it on me. Let's rerail this thing.
Additionally: Almost no one has the opportunity to finish all of their business before they die. Do they all become ghosts? If not, what or how much must be unfinished in order to assure ghosthood? By what means? If I were to take revenge on someone so badly that I reached out from beyond the grave I imagine I'd want to do more than cause some gentle breezes and slam a few doors. What is the extent to which ghosts can interact with the physical world, and what is there means of doing so? What's your basis for believing in their existence then? This is not meant to suggest that actually seeing a ghost is the only potentially valid reason for believing in them, it is not a loaded question. So are we to believe that every perceived ghost outside of a haloween costume is the real thing? If this is the case, why can some of them be fended off by caulking window frames and repairing floorboards and stairs? Okay. If they serve as reminders of the individuals they represent, what are the criteria for deciding whose memory requires paranormal attention and whose doesn't? If they serve to indicate the existence of an afterlife, what information about this afterlife can we glean from their actions here on earth?
Finally, why do ghosts universally and presumably intentionally evade scientific detection and analysis? If their purpose is to send a message, why deny it to anyone who simply turns the lights on? If they do in fact interact with the physical world, then this interaction is measurable. If they can perceive and convey information of their own accord, this could also be tested easily and conclusively. This would revolutionize science and open the door to an entirely new branch of study– one with the potential to ultimately conquer death. Why have ghosts seemingly deliberately thwarted all efforts to fully understand them, or even establish their reality?
You obviously don't believe everything you hear, you have to choose somehow. Understanding the limits of your own knowledge is really good, and essential to science, but it isn't a method of choosing what you should or should not believe.
The quote is nice and very wise-sounding but it isn't literally true and no one here is presuming to know everything. I'm hoping we can move past arguments from ignorance.
why... you may ask that i hold such beliefs.. because i have had experiences of it.. i suppose the reason you're asking about people's paranormal beliefs is because you haven't experienced it first hand and thus do not understand what it's like.. i do wish (without ill intentions) that you may come across a paranormal situation some day so you may appreciate the experience.. but that's not something i or anyone can help with..
and the limits of knowledge do determine what people choose to believe and not believe.. well.. atleast i assume those who are reasonable beings would.. not all scientists agree to the existence of extra-terrestrial life forms but that's because there's hasn't been concrete evidence of their existence to warrant a widespread acceptance.. our knowledge is still limited in this area... resulting in conflicting views on this matter..
the same thing could be said with paranormal beliefs.. one does not need to have the knowledge to make an experience a paranormal one.. because arguably we don't have the concrete knowledge there to make sense of what it is aside from the experiential aspect of it...so how do you propose anyone here to explain to you their paranormal beliefs when none of us are equipped with the knowledge of what exactly is a paranormal creature?
essentially.. what you're asking is someone to explain to you what they do not know but have only experienced from their senses.. you can keep giving us questions and some of us will try to answer them to the best of what our limited knowledge can offer.. but ultimately all we can give you is a recollection of our experiences and not the explanation that you seek.. it is not arguments or ignorance that we need to move past.. knowledge is required for those 2 things to occur... we simply just don't have the grounds to formulate an argument on something we don't know.. let alone be ignorant of it..
lol and yes... "De omnibus dubitandum" is a viable answer to this question.. =)
While it is not necessary for one to follow a religion to have a purpose in life, many people agree with the teachings of a certain religion, thus they choose to live by it (but some just grew up in it and believe in it due to habit).
So in the end, what do I think is the most dangerous and evil? Evil humans. Even if there is a world without religion, evil humans will make the world a terrible place for others.
--------------------
On another topic, I think there are many things that we just have the concept of, but have no exact knowledge of it.
Like the famous sorites argument: What is a heap of sand? or What is a flock of birds?
We obviously have the concept of these things, know when to use the terms, and know that these things exist, but we cannot describe them exactly. So maybe people who have the concept of ghosts in their minds are like the same. They just know what a ghost is and that they exist, but cannot describe exactly what it is.
The half comes from so-called "zero-eth level" powers: those which produce remarkable effect but have little or no impact on the world beyond the subjective.
Each power level is more significant than the last, ranging from rays of frost to flight to the stopping of time. A notably exception to this power scale is the "transformation" powers which are totally OP.
People are capable of utilizing these powers a number of times a day based on their intelligence (or charisma) and level of experience...
I'll try another angle: There must be some paranormal claims in which you do not believe. Horoscopes, crop circles, reiki, faith healing, whatever. The people who believe in these things have had experiences just as convincing as yours, and yet are mistaken in their beliefs. Why do you believe you are incapable of such error? It's not an answer to anything but it's very good advice. What bothers me is that the people offering it here aren't following it–– everyone arguing in favor of paranormal beliefs is doing so with absolute trust in their own ability to accurately perceive and interpret reality. This is absolutely the furthest thing from following your own advice.
By all means doubt everything- especially yourself.
Edit: To steal yet another example from Sam Harris: The more extremist you become as a Muslim the more violent you become. The more extremist you become as a Jain, the less violent you become. The content of the belief matters, and not all beliefs are morally neutral or equal.