[/quote]
</i>
Originally posted by James R
I don't , if all I have to rely on is my own experience.
So you are saying unless someone else verifies your experiences, you are not sure whether you are sane or insane?
But the fact is that many other people can read this post and verify its contents quite independently of me.
But how do you "know" its a fact, your mind could be playing tricks?
Are you saying that due to your experience, you are safe in the knowledge that you are of sound mind?
They don't have to have talked with me, or to have been with me when I read it, or anything. Therefore, its claim to objective existence is much stronger than Pammy's ghost's claim.
So what?
That answers nothing, it is not a competition, the fact is, you are using your own experiences to judge what is real or false.
I haven't disputed that she was of sound mind. Whether she was awake and alert is something which she is not in the best position to attest to.
Sooooo.....we don't know whether we are awake and alert until it has been verified by a scientific machine or loads of other people?
An obvious other alternative, which is a given, is that ghosts exist and what she saw was really a garden-variety spirit.
You said you were offering alternative explanations, and all of them were backed with disbelief, so really you only offered one explanation, *t could not have happened.
Does it not occur to you it could have happened, but because you lack experience, you can't say for sure?
That is actually your true position.
However, as is so often stated: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
The extaordinary evidence does not come through test tubes and carbon dating machines, it must be more personal as the extraordinary claim is one of a very personal nature. I'm afraid "experience" is the next stage of of evidence.
Sadly, there is no extraordinary evidence for the existence of ghosts.
How do you know?
What do you think "extraordinary evidence" would entail, bearing in mind it could not be the same way you perceive "ordinary evidence".
Sometimes the run-of-the-mill answer makes the most sense.
Yes, you are right, but sometimes they can be distributed without giving thought to the situation, simply because it is easier.
Neither am I, and I haven't done so here.
Not directly, but the implications are there.
What makes you think being able to watch Frasier is a virtue?
Who mention virtue, i simply enjoy it, if i want to run about all day foraging for food, i can, but i prefer not to.
Cheetahs run faster than us.
I hear you, and that is cool. There are times when i would like the thrill of running that fast, especially if i were in the Olympics.
But i don't relish having to run fast 3-4 times a day to keep mine and my families lives, i would much rather find simpler ways of doing that.
Fortunately i can.
Whales hold their breath for longer.
Impressive, but not for me, i'd sooner be breathing.
Monkeys are better tree-climbers.
They'd better be, or it's curtains!
Owls see in the dark better.
If they can't, they will die.
Dogs have a better sense of smell. Need I go on?
That is why we use them in the police force, in alot of cases, and no, I get the picture.
Religions all have a barrow to push.
Says you, who cannot be bothered to look up and check on statement you made. It is very clear that your view of religion is based on religious institutes which do not base their actions on God. The first thing you should do, is find out what religion actually is.
If you were to go up to random people in the street and ask them what they think "science" is, what do you think their responses would be.?
Do you think they will give the correct answer?
If not, why do think this is?
ir god(s) are always the One True Path. I don't need to go into too much detail once I ascertain that a religion doesn't have the monopoly on Truth that it claims to have.
The true religion cannot make such a claim, the true religion gives all glories and obesciences to GOD.
Is it not true that there are scientists who make weapons of mass-destruction for the highest bidder, knowing it may not be used for the benefit of mankind. Do you think they reprisent “science”?
I made a statement about the status given to animals by biblical fundamentalists. It is accurate, as far as I know, and you have presented nothing to indicate otherwise (so far).
Then as an objective person, don’t you think you should check these statements out for yourself, especially as you are part-moderator of a religious forum?
Would you have been so sloppy if someone made a scientific statement of the same generalisation?
Why does it matter whether they have souls or not?
You mean you don’t know?
Can't you separate the moral issue from the religious?
Everything is connected, how can you separate, and what would be the point of this separation?
Surely it would mean we can do what we like without regard to other living entities.
Surely the important point here is ability to suffer, not whether an animal possesses some nebulous property invented by humans.
Nebulous property……………invented by humans……………….do you have anything which can back these claims up?
You'd be surprised.
Go ahead!
Surprise me.
Love
Jan Ardena.
The "something special" referred to here is obviously the soul. i.e. the guys at AnswersinGenesis think humans have souls and animals don't, based on the bible. This is just one expression of this view, which is commonplace among Christian fundamentalists.
Originally posted by James R
Along with all the other minds reading this? No, I don't think so,
I understand what you are saying, and i agree with you, you actually feel safe in the knowledge.
When first, people have these extraordinary experiences, i think you will find they doubt what they have experienced, and try very hard to rationalise it, because they think they may be going mad. It is not until they find out that the same experience is shared by other minds, they possibly come to terms with it.
In the case of ghosts, there are quite a number of cases, where the experiences are very similar, in all aspects.
unless you're asking me to believe that I am imagining the whole world. That is a much bigger hurdle than imagining a ghost.
I believe you, based on my own experience, but imagining the whole world would not necasserily be a bigger hurdle than imagining a ghost. Why would you think it would?
Not due to experience alone. Due to independent confirmation.
Me too.
Because I can draw on other instances of similar experiences, compare and contrast.
Care to share?
Not always. (BTW, saying "loads" is a strawman version of my view on the amount of evidence required for independent confirmation.)
Just a slang terminology.
But that's beside the point. You don't need to experience everything personally in order to draw conclusions.
No you don't in some cases, but generally it has to be experienced by yourself or someone to draw the best conclusion.
I can conclude that breathing a carbon-monoxide rich atmosphere would be dangerous to my health without having to trying it out for myself in my garage.
Yes you can, but it becomes absolute truth when people die as a result of it, whereas before it was a very good theory.
The only scientifically acceptable evidence is evidence which can be independently verified. The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
The trouble with that is, it is rejected when it cannot be independantly verified, regardless of whether it is true or not.
So science cannot be the only way to establish a fact, there must be a more natural way, because there are way too many eye witnesses who claim to have had similar experiences, to just put it into the "not independantly verified folder".
Because I have looked into this - and I'm not the only one.
Maybe the aparatus that could verify such subtle existence, is completely organic (mental, etheric), and is constructed perfectly within some living beings, allowing their senses to vibrate to a faster/higher frequency, under certain conditions. And maybe scientists at the moment, have not developed something which can recieve such subtle material.
Just throwing an idea in.
In the case of ghosts - a clear, undoctored photograph;
Don't you watch T.V.
I will do a net search to see if any are online.
an undoctored recording of a ghost's voice conveying information which could not have been obtained by other means; reliable scientific measurements of phenomena associated with a ghostly presence.
I have a feeling, that wouldn't make you believe, however, i could be wrong.
Basically, "extraordinary" simply means something like "unequivocal" in this context.
I don't agree with you, firstly unequivocal should be universal, whether ordinary or extraordinary, and secondly unequivocal does not describe what extraordinary evidence is, it merely tells you what the result should be.
Your personal preferences about something don't make any difference to its intrinsic value.
I never said that it did, in fact i maintain that it doesn't.
[/i]You would prefer not to be an animal; therefore you say that you are "better" than an animal. [/i]
If you read my post carefully, you will note that i say that i am not essentially better, i say we are the same, animals and humans alike, but, i believe i am in a better position, spiritually, than the animals, which i regard as my opinion.
I guess you would prefer not to have terminal cancer, too. Does that make you better than people with terminal cancer?
No, but i would conclude that i am in a better position than they are, if i don't have any such terminal disease, but i do not believe i am better than they are, there is a difference.
You're simply displaying species prejudice again.
Believe me, i'm not.
Humans must be pretty good because you're a human, right?
Why i am glad i am human, is because i can learn about who and what i am and who and what God is, if it wasn't for that, then logically there would be no need to feel any different than animals. Again, i hold my hand up, it is my opinion and i don't talk about it as fact.
Just like white people must be better than black people because you're white.
What can a white person do that a black person can't or vice-versa?
Or men must be better than women because you're a man. The arguments are the same in each case.
That is a different discussion my friend!
My views are not from any religious institutes, I assure you. I have my own views.
Please, share these veiws, i would very much like to hear them.
What true religion? Yours, I suppose. See what I mean about the One True Path thing?
You are jumping to massive conclusions. The true religion is to love God. God appears through his word, directly or indirectly, these are scriptures. There are many different types of mentalities in this world, so God comunicates to all those who want to hear, at various levels. All paths lead to love of God, through service, which is described in various scriptures, for different people at different times. So any religion which teaches one to love God, is real religion, it doesn't matter what it is called.
Religion, on the other hand, is always prescriptive. It tells people how they should live and what they should believe.
Maybe you are right, but God knows if you take a certain path in life, that it may lead to something unpleasent, whereas you may not, so He offers you an alternative, but the alternative has to be based at first, on faith, because you cannot see the consequences of your actions. He doesn't force you, because you are an individual, made in His image, and therefore you have to make the decisions yourself, (as does He) so he relys on your intelligence, it is through using your intelligence that you can understand how nature works. This strengthens your faith a little more and so on and so forth, until you realise.
But the truth of the matter is, we are being told how to live and what we should believe right now, so we have a choice.
Surely it would mean we can do what we like without regard to other living entities.</i>
I'm not sure I understand you.
If we work without applying moral principles to our actions, then effectively, we can do what we like, some people may naturally still act within basic moral guidlines, but alot would not, just take a look at society.
Fundamentalist Christians justify poor treatment of animals on the grounds that they are inferior to human beings.
Then why give them the time of day, it is blatantly obvious that that is foolish behaviour, and not in accordance with the teaching and life style of Jesus.
That is no different than killing animals because we desire to eat meat in action, but worse if you are claiming it is sanctioned by God.
They are inferior because they lack a soul and because God gave Man dominion over them, apparently.
I would love to discuss with these guys.
If, on the other hand, we do not rely on the truth of the fundamentalists' assumptions, we can construct a defensible moral position based on the capacity of all animals (human and non-human) to suffer. That position stands alone, without any need for support from any religious position.
I agree with you. To me it boils down to common sense, I would not like to be treated in such a way, so i would not treat in that way.
Do you have any objective evidence for the existence of souls other than human say-so?
I would have to say yes, because i am alive, but i don't think you would fully understand what i mean.
The onus is not on me to show that souls do not exist, but on those who claim they exist to show evidence for their existence.
In truth my friend, there is no onus at all, we all have a right to live the best way we can, onuses only apply in debates and court.
Love
Jan Ardena.
There have been quite a few with undoctered photographic evidence.</i>
Originally posted by James R
Jan:
Me: <i>Yes, but why? Could it possibly be that the human brain shares common features across many different people?</i>
You: <i>So does hands feet and genitals.</i>
Yes, but we're not talking about our genitals playing tricks on us here.
So what is your point?
No, it doesn't.
Good.
However, given the efforts scientists have made to find any objective evidence of ghosts, we can safely conclude that their existence is most unlikely.
Only as far as science cannot prove, right?
There may be an invisible purple dragon called Herbert living in my garage that science has never detected, but it's not very likely.
People don’t claim to see purple dragons called Herbert, so that is a pointless statement, and if you are attempting to trivialise the experiences of people, then that is irresponsible.
That it does not exist, at least as defined prior to 1905.
Why prior to 1905.
These are all beliefs, unsupported by any evidence other than a string of anecdotes passed down from one person to the next.
There are some things you cannot know through empirical evidence.
Even in the department of abiogenisis, they give artistic examples of transitional species, asking you to believe this is how it happened, albeit based on scientific calculation.
So you are required to use your power of judgement and discrimination, if we all did things according to evidence we would be nothing more than robots, imo.
Nobody can go out and gather objective evidence that God is the origin of everything,
The instruments used to gather such information, the intelligence, the brain power, the man power, all these things too originate from God, so to create such an expedition is in ignorance right from the start.
….or tht spiritual consciousness exists,
Spirit and matter are exact opposites, where one is dull and lifeless, the other is bright and full of life. (Please understand, I am not telling you this is so, I’m talking from my veiwpoint for purpose of discussion) So life is spirit, and there is life everywhere.
It's all just faith, based on a shaky foundation. Comforting, perhaps, but indistinguishable from fantasy on any objective criterion.
Of course there is faith, because we cannot fathom the greatness of God, it is inconcievable. I do not agree that it is on shaky ground because I have experienced shaky ground, and the knowledge of God bears no resemblence.
It is very comforting and I agree it can seem indistinguishable from fantasy, only because fantasy goes beyond the realm of science, but it has its roots firmly planted in the objective world, through science, art and philosophy, the main branches of mundane knowledge, imo.
It is a misunderstanding of evolution to suppose that any kind of evolutionary heirarchy exists.
That is your opinion.
Evolution isn't a progression from lower to higher forms of life.
What do you regard as higher or lower forms of life?
Each surviving lifeform on Earth is superbly adapted to its environment. There is no pyramid of life with humans at the top, chimpanzees slightly lower, dogs even lower and bacteria at the bottom. In fact, based on the time over which each of these species has survived, the bacteria should be at the top, and humans at the bottom.
So you believe we are all equal.
What is the Vedic definition of "species"?
I will get back to you on that, please remind me if I forget.
The Christian tradition does not incorporate ideas of rebirth, except at the end of time.
Is “The Christian” religion mentioned in the bible?
There is no Christian "karma". Ancient strictures on the sacrifice of animals originated due to health issues, and were largely a product of their time.
Lets, just for now forget about this religion or that religion, let us focus on scipture. It is not hard to find evidence of karma in the bible, although it does not say it directly.
As far as the health issue goes, do you have any documents on this?
I went to a Christian school. I attended Sunday school and, later, bible classes. Believe me, I've heard all about God,
What did they teach you about God?
It is immaterial as to what the bible says exactly, unless you are a fundamentalist. What matters is how it is interpreted and applied in practice.
Then how can it be immeterial?
Love
Jan Ardena.