(continued...)
I don't believe it's aliens and I've said this before. But what people experience is real to them. It doesn't have to be real to you or to me.
I think "real to me" or "real to them" or "real for you" are all weasel words.
There's real, and there's not real. People's
beliefs about what is real and what is not differ, but I don't think there's any justification for throwing out the baby with the bathwater and pretending that any belief about reality is as good as any other belief.
The same goes for expressions like "my truth", "our truth", "your truth" etc. There's
the truth, and then there's what's false.
And, of course, our good friend "alternative facts" is in the same paddock with all of these.
Do you feel better now?
Now that you've gotten that off your chest?
I'm more interested in whether you agree with me than I am in whether you think I feel more comfortable about having said something.
On the other hand, you're really just trying to dismiss what I said, with that, aren't you? You're trying to imply that I'm having an emotional outburst, rather than making a reasoned argument, which perhaps makes to think you're justified in not taking it seriously.
Do you think I am gullible for believing that people experienced something that is similar to what I have experienced?
Again, I have to be careful to distinguish between (a) having an experience and (b) believing that having that experience provides good objective evidence for some truth about the physical world.
If you are talking about (a), then I don't think you're gullible. I, too, accept that many people report having similar experiences of seeing ghosts.
If, on the other hand, you are talking about (b), then I think it would be a little gullible of you to believe in the existence of ghosts based solely on the existence of a lot of anecdotal evidence. After all, lots of people have been wrong before about lots of things for which they had only anecdotal evidence.
He can't make you believe in anything that you don't want to, James.
That's actually out of my control because, as I said, we don't get to choose our beliefs. If he manages to convince me that the aliens are here, for instance, then I'll believe it, regardless of what I might want.
That's quite dismissive and insulting, don't you think?
Why do you think his beliefs are trolling?
Trolling is an activity, evidenced by actions. It's not MR's
beliefs that are trolling, Bells. His trolling is to be found in his pattern of behaviour on this forum. haven't you noticed it?
You don't have to believe as he does. You can argue against his belief in what others have seen or experienced as being real and you can ask for proof. That is going to the crux of the subject matter. But you seem to be personally offended at what he believes in.
No. I don't care what he believes in, at least insofar as what he believes in does not harm other people. I also used to worry about the harms that he inflicts on himself, but these days I don't think he's even honest about what he believes. I think he is probably damaged by past experiences that none of us know about. After all, you don't get to be like that for no reason. But I know that he has enough knowledge now - after reading this forum for
years - to inoculate himself against some of the harms that his ostensible belief system might otherwise cause him. These days, I'm more concerned about the harm he is potentially doing to others, knowingly. It's one reason I like to counter his efforts.
But I also understand where he is coming from and why he may choose to believe as he does.
I'm not sure that you should trust what he says about where he is coming from. Not that he ever says much about that, anyway.
There's a lot of reasons why. Some people believe because of their own experiences. Others believe in the testimonies of others on these topics because they want to believe there is something more out there, that what we have on this planet isn't it, that it doesn't end here. There's nothing wrong, naïve or stupid to believe like that. I mean hell, consider how many people believe in God or the spiritual realm?
You're an atheist. But here you're telling me you think there's nothing wrong, naive or stupid about believing in God.
Really, Bells?
Nothing at all?
If there's
nothing wrong with it, or naive or stupid, why don't you believe in God? Or - if you prefer - why take a position on the matter at all? If believing in God is just as good as not believing, why not just sit on the fence?
Actually here's why: you didn't make a choice not to believe in God. You just didn't become convinced there is a God - or you became unconvinced at some stage in your life, having been convinced previously. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it wasn't
random that you ended up where you are on the God issue. Was it?
My point is that it doesn't limit you or infringe on your existence or how you or anyone else lives their life.
Actually, I think that going through life believing in the supernatural and superstition and astrology and 7 years' bad luck from broken mirrors and that kind of thing
does limit a person in a number of ways. They might not
feel like they are constrained by those beliefs - they might never consider the question - but they are.
He's not posting this in the science section. You don't have to argue with him about it or even read it. You don't have to believe what he posts. You are free to disagree with him, as he is to disagree with you and I.
None of us
have to argue with anybody here, Bells. None of us have to post anything at all. But, as you say, any of us is free to disagree with another of us.
I disagree with MR's positions on a number of matters. So, if you don't mind, I will continue to post on those matters, when disagreements arise.
I'm puzzled as to why you're so keen that I stop.
But you just think he is naïve, stupid and gullible for believing similar experiences of other people.
He certainly plays up the naive, stupid and gullible, on this forum. Whether he is or isn't those things is debatable. But while I often find myself second-guessing whether he is a legitimate participant in discussions here, in my replies the easiest thing to do is to take him at face value. If he is not, in fact, a trolling fraud, then naive, stupid and gullible all fit him to a tee. He has a
very long history here. Haven't you noticed?
Dude, billions of people believe in life after death. Religion is based on this premise, that our spirits go on to another plane of existence, that our lives continue after we die.
Argumentum ad populum.
That's a well-known argumentary fallacy, Bells. I'm surprised this is the basis of your defence of MR.
Except, you are denying our experiences:
I was very careful to distinguish sense (a) from sense (b), mentioned earlier in this post.
I in no way deny that either of you had experiences (sense (a)). I do not believe that either of your experiences - or your experiences taken together - prove that ghosts exist (sense (b)).
I thought I explained that clearly before. In fact, I believe I made that point at least twice, if not three times, to both you and MR, prior to the post of yours that I'm quoting here.
I don't even know what I experienced, James. How can you, someone who hasn't experienced it, be the one to tell me what it was not?
I did not presume to tell you what it was or was not.
What I told you is that
I am not convinced you saw an actual ghost. In addition, I told you why I don't think anybody
else should be convinced that you saw a ghost, based on your account.
I could be wrong, of course. Maybe ghosts are real, and you saw one. All I can say is that, I'll need better evidence before I'll be convinced that either of those things are facts.
Why do you think you are in the position to say that or to tell me what it was or was not?
Again, I have not tried to tell you what it was or was not. Please understand that.