Ghosts

[naomi24]

This emanates from another thread where two people who have been raised as Christians and have and do argue here in favour of religion dismissed the notion that people see ghosts. The question is if you believe that human beings possess a spirit, or a soul, that survives corporal death, why do you doubt that ‘ghosts’ exist?

[Khandro]

naomi; //I think we're all aware of that.// [the assertions of Sacks and James] Well if you are aware that hallucinations appear to some as being absolutely real, doesn't that answer your question, - which has absolutely no bearing whatsoever with religion.

[naomi24]

Jim, I’m very happy to correct you because you are wrong. Stop putting words into my mouth. That’s a habit of yours. I haven’t said I don’t believe anyone else. You do however have a point there because what you, and all the other people here, who are insisting that unexplained events do not happen are in fact saying is ‘I’ve not experienced it, therefore you haven’t either’. I don’t need you to evaluate the evidence of my own experience. I am perfectly capable of doing that for myself.

Khandro, unexplained events do not confine themselves to what you and your man would call ‘hallucinations’ – and as I’ve said repeatedly, religion isn’t a consideration.

[Baldric]

Well I was looking forward to an interesting thread, however,
"I right, you're wrong" repeated in various forms ad nauseam
is not what I had in mind.

[whiskeryron]

To all of you who say ' there is no such thing' I recommend that you look at the BBC Horizon programme ' What is Reality' where scientists actually say they are puzzled by the actions & reactions of sub atomic particles that do not conform to known physics.

WR.

[Octavius]

"Well I was looking forward to an interesting thread, however,
"I right, you're wrong" repeated in various forms ad nauseam
is not what I had in mind."

Baldric, clearly you have not been to R&S before then!

[naomi24]

Baldric, nor me.

[jim360]

Maybe I did put words into your mouth that time, but at least I acknowledged the possibility. Meanwhile, how many times are you going to try to turn my words into some personal attack? It's not an attack at all. And, with respect, you are not perfectly capable of evaluating your own personal experience. No-one is, ironically precisely because it is personal. This means that as soon as I do experience something like this for myself I will almost certainly be more inclined to take it seriously, which is a pity, but that's how personal experience works. It can be corrupting, as no-one likes to doubt the evidence of their own senses, even though those senses are often fooling.

I haven't said you didn't experience it, either. You are, again, putting words into my[i mouth there. But you are most likely misinterpreting what went on as a sign of the unexplained. But just because [i]you] cannot explain it does not mean no-one else can -- or, rather, that no-one else might be able to, given all the data.

[Baldric]

Another thing I forgot to mention,
Presumptuous people, who read 2 or 3 lines,
then make It up as they go along

[naomi24]

Baldric, yes indeed.

Jim, //you are not perfectly capable of evaluating your own personal experience.//

Actually, since I have confirmation of what I experienced from other people who experienced the same things at the same time, I am perfectly capable of evaluating my own experiences – as they are. Where do you get off telling people they’re misinterpreting their own experiences – of which you know absolutely nothing? It’s not all about shadows or creaking floorboards in the night you know. You haven’t a clue!

Perhaps you should stick to science and address Ron’s post.

[Octavius]

Naomi, I wouldn't agree that collective intelligence is evidence in itself.

Many psychologists over time (Freud, Le Bon etc) have identified the suggestible nature of group mentality where rationality and logic are disregarded in favour of social common agreement.

[naomi24]

Octavius, what you mean like all those people who believe in the ghost that no one can see - The Holy one?

The same applies to you. You haven't a clue.

[jim360]

Without having watched the program I couldn't possibly comment on what WR means, exactly, and even then it's a long way from subatomic particles deviating from what is predicted (no, really? Shock! Horror! We've still got more to learn!) and therefore there are ghosts.

[Octavius]

Naomi, yes, like all those people who claim they have been abducted by UFOs or seen Loch Ness, Bigfoot and ghosts.

[Baldric]

I've seen Loch Ness,
it's a large body of water up North!

[naomi24]

Jim, if that’s what you’ve resorted to, you clearly have nothing to add to this discussion.

Octavius, so the religious are wrong too. Thank you for that.

[jim360]

I'll decide whether I have anything to add or not, not you.

If I know nothing about your personal experiences, then you know nothing about science. Certainly, you know far less than you seem to think you do. You don't have a clue.

[Octavius]

Baldric (lol).

But do you have any actual evidence? A snapshot of you in budgie smugglers with a thumbs up would suffice.

[Octavius]

"Octavius, so the religious are wrong too"

Are they? Wrong about what?

[Baldric]

//A snapshot of you in budgie smugglers//

I think not, don't want to get banned,
or scare the more sensitive among us.

[naomi24]

Jim, I don’t claim to be an expert on science – I never have. You however, claim to know rather a lot about something of which you have no knowledge whatsoever.

Octavius, the Holy Ghost. It was the ‘Yes’ in response to my question “what you mean like all those people who believe in the ghost that no one can see - The Holy one?”, that did it.