Sounds of ghosts from abandoned insane asylum

[wegs]

Like I really need to "replace" the festering soul cancer that was eating away at me from the inside out for 20 years of my life.

I know.

 

[Balerion]

It's not Magical's ''replacement'' for Christianity. What?

Did you even read the post? Because your confusion would be rectified if you had.

MR didn't give up Christianity because he's a rational person; he gave up on it because it was traumatic. He's replaced it with supernaturalism, which he defends with all the illogical tenacity and credulity of a religious zealot.

 

[Mazulu]

Did you even read the post? Because your confusion would be rectified if you had.

MR didn't give up Christianity because he's a rational person; he gave up on it because it was traumatic. He's replaced it with supernaturalism, which he defends with all the illogical tenacity and credulity of a religious zealot.

would supernatural phenomena still be illogical if it turned out that dark matter had something to do with it?

 

[cole grey]

No. MR's position is that there is plenty of evidence for the existence of ghosts and spirits and all other types of fairytale BS he wishes were true.

I am actually paraphrasing what he said a page or two earlier, and it sounded suspiciously lacking of the empiricism. He said some fields do not lend themselves to the rigors of hard science, and certainly attributing some unexplained energy a life force is as philosophical as just about anything. And if he also thinks there is plenty of evidence based on these interpretations of the unexplained, that is the same process of most religious people - a process he is antagonistic towards. The only difference is saying, "we will find out, and I'll have my proof." But what happens when we don't find out. Kick the can down the road, of course.

Everything he's submitted as evidence can be easily explained as something mundane--hoaxes, misunderstandings, etc--but MR is wholly uncritical and devoid of skepticism when it comes to the paranormal. This is because he wants to believe in it. It is his replacement for Christianity, which he renounced after a traumatic upbringing. As it turns out, it wasn't logic and reason that turned him away from God, it was his negative experience in organized religion. He's still deeply religious, just less organized about it.

interpretations not subject to testing, just like some of freud's ideas, religions and philosophies, that I was talking about this last few weeks. And yet here I am looking at a ghost thread, and... as you say... the double standard.

That's ludicrous. Even if there were unexplained phenomena related to the supernatural, the assumption that it relates to mythology is entirely without basis.

it is incredibly obvious that, were these things to occur throughout history,people would have attached their mythology to it. Chicken or egg, i don't care and we wouldn't know, but you can't believe people wouldn't equate these beings with demons or angels, or gods, or spirits of the forest, if they walked into somebody's hut, tent, castle, or house, or popped out from behind a tree.
Additionally, the ghost is a wild card. Until it is explained, communicated with, etc, it is just another thing you can say pretty much anything about. "This spooky electrical phenomenon is a human soul," is just philosophy. It could just as easily be explained as humans interpreting some experience, in the way that makes sense to them, putting anthropomorphic form to something that doesn't have a form at all and is just random quantum glitching from many worlds # 7 or wherever.

He said earlier in this thread that there's no evidence for God because he doesn't exist. While I agree with that as a general statement, this ed seems to be his rationale for unbelief, which makes me think his lost faith has to do more with his bad experience growing up in Christianity than it does with any lack of evidence. You can see it in the double standard he applies: he believes every word of every claim made by a ghost-hunter or medium, but refuses to accept the same first-hand claims from people who attribute their experiences to God or Jesus. It has nothing to do with evidence or logic; it's about faith.

this double standard seems pretty much ubiquitous. Classic case of interpretation based on ideology (the way most people do it), as opposed to ideology based on facts, that most people claim to have.

 

[Balerion]

it is incredibly obvious that, were these things to occur throughout history,people would have attached their mythology to it. Chicken or egg, i don't care and we wouldn't know, but you can't believe people wouldn't equate these beings with demons or angels, or gods, or spirits of the forest, if they walked into somebody's hut, tent, castle, or house, or popped out from behind a tree.

I thought you meant what we'd call them in terms of actual scientific classification. If you're just talking about what laypeople would call them, sure.

Additionally, the ghost is a wild card. Until it is explained, communicated with, etc, it is just another thing you can say pretty much anything about. "This spooky electrical phenomenon is a human soul," is just philosophy. It could just as easily be explained as humans interpreting some experience, in the way that makes sense to them, putting anthropomorphic form to something that doesn't have a form at all and is just random quantum glitching from many worlds # 7 or wherever.

That's true, though calling it philosophy is too generous. There's no deep thought here, or pursuit of truth. It's wish-thinking.

 

[cole grey]

So if an alien race of beings were detected living on another planet, should we assume they also correspond to our mythologies about what they are and how they look? Would you use the same logic and say an ET must be just like little green men or greys or Daleks because afterall its just semantics to deny they are these things? Ofcourse not.

you are talking about something that hasn't happened as if it were more real than people talking about religion. If aliens exist, they may simply be invisible to us, maybe the ghosts are aliens, maybe they are non-human beings, maybe they are dead people. You do not know.
Maybe the aliens will breathe fire and eat only green cheese, you don't know. Just don't pretend to have a frame of reference, if your frame of reference moves when talking about one interpretive process (ghosts), and then moves again when talking about religion. Is it ok to say, "use this cognitive process for science, and this other process for ghosts", but it isn't ok to say, "use this process for science, and this other process for religion." ??? You think if someone hears a ghost they are sane and if someone hears god they are crazy???

There is likewise absolutely no reason whatsoever that paranormal entities should correspond to any of the characters we have made up in our religions and storybooks. And indeed, they show none of the characteristics of theological superbeings.

these things clearly are not defined yet. You are talking about some type of energies that manifest in a way that appears to some people to have a form that is in accordance with things they know about. These things you are talking about could be called a lot of things, fairies, spirits, demons, aliens, raw manifestations of energy that we anthropomorphize, etc. The point is that if one set of beings that defies current empirical testing exists, the door is open for a hundred other unexplained ideas to be true.

Ghosts show all the characteristics of deceased humans full of flaws and hangups that somehow got stuck in a state they can't get out of. This afterlife corresponds to nothing religion has taught us about heaven or hell.

if spirits exist after death, that puts us about a thousand miles closer to the idea of heaven and hell than if spirits don't exist after death.

 

[cole grey]

I thought you meant what we'd call them in terms of actual scientific classification. If you're just talking about what laypeople would call them, sure.

My main point was that if we don't know what they are, it is quite difficult to say what they are not.

 

[Balerion]

My main point was that if we don't know what they are, it is quite difficult to say what they are not.

Presumably, if we discovered actual evidence of them, we'd have some idea of what they were. That said, supposing a hypothetical scenario in which we saw something we truly could not explain, I don't see what the rationale would be for assuming they could be the ghosts and demons of legend.

 

[wegs]

Did you even read the post? Because your confusion would be rectified if you had.

MR didn't give up Christianity because he's a rational person; he gave up on it because it was traumatic. He's replaced it with supernaturalism, which he defends with all the illogical tenacity and credulity of a religious zealot.

I understand your assertion, but the fundamental difference between someone believing in the paranormal and someone following a Deity, is that there is no worship involved with the paranormal. There is no emotion connected with it. Religion requires more than belief, it requires worship, and an unwavering sense of faith. Magical doesn't have 'faith' in the paranormal and he's admitted that he doesn't believe in every reported claim. So, while I see what you're saying, I don't believe that he 'swapped' one for the other--for what causes one to become a religious zealot has more to do with worship, piety, and fear. Those three things can be entirely absent when ''believing'' in the possibility of the paranormal. If Magical were to find out that the paranormal does not exist, he wouldn't be 'traumatized,' as he was with Christianity, when he came to terms with that sham of a religion. I'm speculating, but I just think it's not as cut and dry as you make it, that's all.

 

[Balerion]

I understand your assertion, but the fundamental difference between someone believing in the paranormal and someone following a Deity, is that there is no worship involved with the paranormal. There is no emotion connected with it.

If you don't see MR's emotional connection to the paranormal, you're not reading his posts. I mean, I really don't know what to tell you. He's acted irrationally and immaturely in this thread when his views on the paranormal have been challenged. That's an emotional response.

Religion requires more than belief, it requires worship,

Incorrect. There are godless religions, and many people who are religious don't practice any kind of worship. They simply have faith.

and an unwavering sense of faith.

That's just silly. I've never met a religious person who would call their faith unwavering, so you're essentially disqualifying everyone in the world based on a qualifier that has no basis in reality.

Magical doesn't have 'faith' in the paranormal and he's admitted that he doesn't believe in every reported claim. So, while I see what you're saying, I don't believe that he 'swapped' one for the other--for what causes one to become a religious zealot has more to do with worship, piety, and fear.

Of course he has faith in the paranormal. He is entirely credulous. He may pay lip service to not believing every reported claim, but I don't buy that for a second, since he hasn't offered a shred of criticism for anything that has been posted by him or others. He takes these people at their word and believes the images, sounds, and stories are all 100% genuine, so by what standard does he decide any claim is false?

That he used this to fill the void left by the absence of Christianity in his life is a natural, rational conclusion reached by his religious behavior in this regard.

MR wants to believe in the paranormal because he can't accept that his God's absence means the death of all the things he liked about religion, such as life after death. The paranormal has become as much of a crutch as his Christianity was.

If Magical were to find out that the paranormal does not exist, he wouldn't be 'traumatized,' as he was with Christianity, when he came to terms with that sham of a religion. I'm speculating, but I just think it's not as cut and dry as you make it, that's all.

He's never going to find out that the paranormal does not exist, because he won't allow himself to believe it. And he didn't "find out" that the Christian God didn't exist, he simply decided it didn't after he got sick of the pain that lifestyle gave him. And no, he wasn't traumatized by the revelation that God doesn't exist; he was traumatized by his experience as a Christian.

The paranormal is his substitute for that. He's not a rational person, he's every bit a believer now as he was then. The difference is that this faith doesn't cost him anything. Well, except his dignity and reputation, but that's a price all believers pay, to some extent.

 

[wegs]

If you don't see MR's emotional connection to the paranormal, you're not reading his posts. I mean, I really don't know what to tell you. He's acted irrationally and immaturely in this thread when his views on the paranormal have been challenged. That's an emotional response.

To be fair, some of his reactions can be directly attributed to your extremely harsh posts. While you have your reasoning, there is (your) subtle implication that Magical lacks common sense and logic, in a general sense--and that can come across as demeaning. Just another way to view it, you know? IOW, he is defending himself and his integrity, more than anything.

Incorrect. There are godless religions, and many people who are religious don't practice any kind of worship. They simply have faith.

If it's a religion, there is an aspect of worship within it. Perhaps, not to a Deity, but there is a worship-aspect of some type within all religions. Otherwise, they all would have died out a long time ago. It is possible to worship (or idolize) a concept or belief.

That's just silly. I've never met a religious person who would call their faith unwavering, so you're essentially disqualifying everyone in the world based on a qualifier that has no basis in reality.

So, every religious person you have ever met has been ''lukewarm'' in his/her faith?

Of course he has faith in the paranormal. He is entirely credulous. He may pay lip service to not believing every reported claim, but I don't buy that for a second, since he hasn't offered a shred of criticism for anything that has been posted by him or others. He takes these people at their word and believes the images, sounds, and stories are all 100% genuine, so by what standard does he decide any claim is false?

If you scroll back, maybe a page or two, can't recall exactly where...I've asked Magical if there are any claims that he has not supported, and you'll see his reply. You might be pleasantly surprised.

That he used this to fill the void left by the absence of Christianity in his life is a natural, rational conclusion reached by his religious behavior in this regard.

I guess that happens, but believing in the paranormal isn't fulfilling, as religion might have once been for him. (or for anyone, for that matter) I'd have to disagree on this point, but only Magical can answer that question, with certainty.

MR wants to believe in the paranormal because he can't accept that his God's absence means the death of all the things he liked about religion, such as life after death. The paranormal has become as much of a crutch as his Christianity was.

How so? It's probably little more than a fleeting thought, when he hears or reads about newly reported claims. He passionately defends the claims on here, because he believes the ''evidence'' that's been provided. (and this site provides a spot for formal discussions) I haven't really seen much in the way of Magical discussing the after-life, in general. Not sure if there's any tie to that, based from his belief in the paranormal.

He's never going to find out that the paranormal does not exist, because he won't allow himself to believe it. And he didn't "find out" that the Christian God didn't exist, he simply decided it didn't after he got sick of the pain that lifestyle gave him. And no, he wasn't traumatized by the revelation that God doesn't exist; he was traumatized by his experience as a Christian.

Okay, fair enough...but either way, believing in the paranormal doesn't cost him anything. And he sees the evidence that claimants have provided as being a differentiating factor between belief in God, and belief in ghosts. (ie: audio and video to support sounds and visions, relating to the paranormal claims)

 

[Magical Realist]

you are talking about something that hasn't happened as if it were more real than people talking about religion. If aliens exist, they may simply be invisible to us, maybe the ghosts are aliens, maybe they are non-human beings, maybe they are dead people. You do not know.

We DO know how ghosts act. We have evps recording their words. We have full body manifestations of them matching deceased people in the past. We have the places they haunt, usually their home or place of death. It would be ignorant to say they aren't deceased persons when they appear for all intents and purposes to be exactly that.

Maybe the aliens will breathe fire and eat only green cheese, you don't know.

I can tell you right now they're NOT going to be the beings we make up in science fiction stories. In the same way, ghosts are NOT the beings we make up in religion or in hollywood. They're not winged cherubs nor goatmen with pitchforks. They are forms of human consciousness.

Just don't pretend to have a frame of reference, if your frame of reference moves when talking about one interpretive process (ghosts), and then moves again when talking about religion.

Don't presume to tell me what to believe about a field I've been studying for 10 years now. The reason I believe in the paranormal is purely based on the evidence I've seen for it. Likewise I reject religion for its complete LACK of evidence. Noone's recording voices of God or Jesus on digital recorders in churches. There are no accounts of God appearing to people in a physical form. They can't even get the wine and the wafers to change their molecular composition. There is no more evidence for religion that there is for any other fantasy. The paranormal? A totally different matter.

Is it ok to say, "use this cognitive process for science, and this other process for ghosts", but it isn't ok to say, "use this process for science, and this other process for religion." ??? You think if someone hears a ghost they are sane and if someone hears god they are crazy???

We have recordings, photos, and videos of ghosts. You come up with a recording or photo of God and maybe I'll listen. And no, a tortilla with the shape of Jesus on it doesn't count.

these things clearly are not defined yet. You are talking about some type of energies that manifest in a way that appears to some people to have a form that is in accordance with things they know about. These things you are talking about could be called a lot of things, fairies, spirits, demons, aliens, raw manifestations of energy that we anthropomorphize, etc. The point is that if one set of beings that defies current empirical testing exists, the door is open for a hundred other unexplained ideas to be true.

No..We have thousands of investigations turning up typical characteristics of these beings that enable us to say they are at least deceased human consciousnessess. There are other cases with poltergeists that suggest something a little more--of tremendous psychic energy being manipulated by a ghost. One thing they are NOT is religious characters from a holy book of fables. When you come up with evidence that they are, let me know, ok?

if spirits exist after death, that puts us about a thousand miles closer to the idea of heaven and hell than if spirits don't exist after death.

Continuance after death doesn't entail either heaven or hell. The state as I pointed out is entirely different. The only state it remotely might be connected to is that of limbo, a quaint superstitious relic of the medieval Catholic Church. If you wanna twist it into some sort of confirmation of the Bible feel free to. But I refuse to do that. I'm going strictly by evidence here, not by the claims made by wishful thinkers.

 

[Magical Realist]

So according to Balerion, I'm replacing religion which totally traumatized me and scarred me with false hope, shame, and neurotic fear with faithbased belief in the paranormal because I miss religion so much? That doesn't even make sense. Why would you replace a system of beliefs you totally discarded because of the suffering it caused you with another system of beliefs that will inflict the same sort of damage? If anything I replaced religion with science, placing my trust in its logic and empiricle methods to become the authorative source of truth for me. But I'm always wary even of science laying claims to being the ultimate epistemological tool. Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me!

 

[Balerion]

So according to Balerion, I'm replacing religion which totally traumatized me and scarred me with false hope, shame, and neurotic fear with faithbased belief in the paranormal because I miss religion so much? That doesn't even make sense. Why would you replace a system of beliefs you totally discarded because of the suffering it caused you with another system of beliefs that will inflict the same sort of damage? If anything I replaced religion with science, placing my trust in its logic and empiricle methods to become the authorative source of truth for me. But I'm always wary even of science laying claims to being the ultimate epistemological tool. Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me!

You're not replacing Christianity with another version of Christianity. What you need is the crutch, the promise of an afterlife and some cosmic meaning. Christianity scarred you, so you ditched God and replaced him with ghosts. Even your basis for disbelief in God isn't rooted in science; your logic on that count is circular. And when it comes to ghosts, you couldn't be further from science. Science doesn't factor into your worldview whatsoever.

 

[Magical Realist]

You're not replacing Christianity with another version of Christianity. What you need is the crutch, the promise of an afterlife and some cosmic meaning. Christianity scarred you, so you ditched God and replaced him with ghosts. Even your basis for disbelief in God isn't rooted in science; your logic on that count is circular. And when it comes to ghosts, you couldn't be further from science. Science doesn't factor into your worldview whatsoever.

Yeah, as usual you think you know me better than I know myself. Why don't you just ask me what I believe first? Aww but then that wouldn't suit your agenda of attacking my character for believing in the paranormal. For the record I don't know if there's an afterlife or not. For all I know ghosts might be semiconscious shells temporarily trapped at certain geographical locations. When they dissipate they may simple cease to exist. So no, I don't know there's an afterlife. But then I don't know there isn't one either. I prefer to wait and find out. That sort of blows your whole immortality crutch argument out of the water doesn't it? Along with your ludicrous claim of me replacing a religion I hated with another religion..

 

[cole grey]

Presumably, if we discovered actual evidence of them, we'd have some idea of what they were.

yes. if we did, i am sure we could put them right up against our descriptions of ghosts demons, fairies, and angels, and aliens, and see which matches most closely. Of course alien believers would probably call angels "aliens", and religious people call aliens "angels", anyway. I doubt any evidence we found would reveal the complete story of these beings, so i doubt it would be clear cut as to what we would call them. We would need to know their history of contact here, and their actual purpose (of course if they talked to us, they could just be lying), to say definitively whether they were something we should call angels or demons, or whatever else.

That said, supposing a hypothetical scenario in which we saw something we truly could not explain, I don't see what the rationale would be for assuming they could be the ghosts and demons of legend.

I dont see why we would or would not, out of an actual necessity, say these evidenced beings were demons for example, so essentially it would be correct to say we could probably call them "x", and also correct to say we needn't call them "x" at all.

 

[Arcadian]

I might do a nightmare...

 

[wegs]

Now, fairies? Oh, I believe they exist.

 

[Mazulu]

Now, fairies? Oh, I believe they exist.

Of course they do. They exist as dark matter, invisible matter. there are spiritual realms, the very kingdom of God, that exists as dark matter.

 

[Balerion]

Yeah, as usual you think you know me better than I know myself. Why don't you just ask me what I believe first?

Because there's no need. Your behavior here tells us all we need to know.

Aww but then that wouldn't suit your agenda of attacking my character for believing in the paranormal.

See, you seem to think you know what I believe, but for some reason it's not fair when I think I know what you believe. Yet another in a long line of double standards.

For the record I don't know if there's an afterlife or not. For all I know ghosts might be semiconscious shells temporarily trapped at certain geographical locations. When they dissipate they may simple cease to exist. So no, I don't know there's an afterlife. But then I don't know there isn't one either. I prefer to wait and find out. That sort of blows your whole immortality crutch argument out of the water doesn't it? Along with your ludicrous claim of me replacing a religion I hated with another religion..

Like I said, the end of your faith in God would have meant an end in your belief in an afterlife. This ghost religion you now believe in keeps the possibility open. It's all the warm and mushy stuff from your former religion without the judgment.