It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
You should also believe in ghosts then. :D
I believe in music
I believe in magic
And I believe in you
All the easy listening hits. ;)
And I..i..i.. believe in you
But I..i..i.. believe in you
And I..i..i.. believe in you
Hmm I was going to ignore this post but my ipad had other plans ... oh well
So what well thought out rebuttals are you referring to from Wizard. Perhaps a ghost took them away i just see Wizard Patb and others doing what i have said before which is basically
"blah blah blah I am a man of science blah blah blah no evidence therefor I dont have to research anything:"
the issue is if we want to lump all supernatural events in the same category as if they are created equal then let's discuss the Fatima Miracle which was witnessed by over 100 people and has no scientific explanation (and before we get the chorus of mass hallucination Modern psychology believes mass hallucination not only don't exist but the hallucination is very much individualized for example if we gave LSD to Patb and Wizard PatB might have a discussion with roger Moore while he is high where Wizard might be talking to Rory Kinnear) so this is a little different then some guy and some grainy CCTV footage. again Where is the scientific proof against the Miracle what really happened?
How about the Resurrection of Christ. An historical event that for me requires no faith at all. Christ Died and on the third day he rose again from the dead. Simple cut and dry and is no different then American winning the revolution or that Donald Trump is the republican party candidate. these are facts and by all means Wizard and Patb show me your scientific proof for how this either occur. I have heard it all and find most of the theories incredibly hilarious.. My personal favorite is the wrong tomb theory. which is the disciples in their grief simply went to the wrong tomb (which why it never occurred to the Romans to parade the dead body through the streets I will never know) of course the disciples stealing the body is still a popular one and one that is equally laughable (considering James's Conversion and Paul's is equally laughable plus if the disciples knew it was a hoax why not just be honest and saved 11 of them from excruciating deaths) perhaps you will go with Christ never existing period or the Resurrection was added later always popular with conspiracy theorists and also equally problematic considering Mark was written around conservatively between 60 and 70 AD literally 30-40 years after Christs death and Resurrection (Paul even points out their are still witnesses to this in I want to say his letter to the Corinthians) and as for never existing well considering we have more evidence of Christ's existence then say Alexander the Great's existence (let alone his conquests which i believe the earliest source is 3-400 years after his death) sure can I also say you don't exist or that the moon is made of cheese? The Christ never existed conspiracy falls along similar lines. of course the "christ didn't die but passed out" theory... yeah sure after the brutal torture Christ endured uhm if he survived all of that and then was able to move a 2 ton stone out of the way... uhm that more miraclous then what actually happened.
So come on Wizard and Patb and others show my faults please it's not like I have a masters in biblical history... oh wait I do.
Up in a better place. I hope that you all jest in peace.
Back to your post and to paraphrase, what we have been presented with is eight paragraphs of 'why I shouldn't respect anyone else's opinion', seasoned with a little 'science doesn't have to prove' a standpoint which was roundly applauded by your acolytes.
Remember when I asked if you had read my posts or digested any of the content therein? Well you have given me your answer.
The simple fact is I did not ask you to respect anyone else's opinion, I asked that when you and others disagree with points raised they do so without recourse to the pitchfork mentality to which has been subscribed across this thread. To save you from looking back I've taken the liberty of pasting (verbatim) that part of my post from the previous page:
The cold hard fact of the matter is none of you can and until such time as said evidence is forthcoming all theories can be treated as nothing more that personal opinion. This leads me to the following point and the crux of my issue with some posters here. Why should people be harangued or otherwise mocked for imparting their own experiences and their interpretation of those experiences? No one has to agree with anyone else but we can disagree without recourse to schoolyard bully tactics. Winning an argument by shouting others into silence is a hollow - even Pyrrhic - victory and hardly a route which needs to be travelled by supposed educated people.
Again - and going back to your own post) I must point out that to suggest that people who have experienced something which they cannot explain or which a reasonable explanation has not been offered are then met with drive by accusations of belief in aliens et al is not what I would expect of someone supposedly trying to rationalise. The argument could most likely be won and won in a convincing fashion if time were taken to put across points in a correct fashion. It's easy for people to mock, jeer and snigger, far easier than it is to convince so for the intellectually lazy the path of least resistance is one which is always very tempting to travel.
So do ghosts exist? I don't know. Some here say they do others say they don't. I do know that both sides would get thrown out of court if they presented their arguments. Indeed some would likely be charged with contempt.
As was the case yesterday, it feels so bizarre and a little sad we're actually being disagreed with about this ghost phenomenon, when science and human error proves so much of what believers label as paranormal activity.
Life isn't that interesting, I'm sorry to say it, folks. Abandon the spirits and cloud gods and find meaning in the people around you; there lies the key to a happy, sane (?) and reasonable life. :)>-
I can't believe ;) the Luddite attitude of some, deliberately ignoring science, to believe in
"Things that go bump in the night" how they cope with, radio, television and the Internet, I'll
Never know ! They must simply class it as " Magic" :))
The counter claim - in my own opinion of course an opinion which will obviously not be respected - that proof is not required to dismiss the allegation that ghosts do exist and we should simply take the word of those gathered here unfortunately doesn't hold water with me.
What I am saying (AGAIN) is that the argument can most likely be won by applying reasonable language and exersising control over the default button of heckling and mockery (Morons anyone?)
lastly (quote) "As was the case yesterday, it feels so bizarre and a little sad we're actually being disagreed with about this ghost phenomenon, when science and human error proves so much of what believers label as paranormal activity."
I agree. however (in my opinion of course!) the keywords here being 'so much'.
" I do know that both sides would get thrown out of court if they presented their arguments." Well, in a civil court, the decision is taken on the balance of probability. We all know the outcome there.
In a criminal court "beyond reasonable doubt". Its a no brainer and the inclusion of "reasonable" says it all. The court applies reason to the argument (thank goodness) and no reasonable person can claim that ghosts exist beyond reasonable doubt. Plus criminal courts deal with postive claims and the onus of proof is on the person making the claim (thank goodness). There is no prosecution for someone not speeding or not commiting a murder and no case for ghosts not existing. The party claiming that nothing happened is under no legal requirement to present any evidence at all.
"How about the Resurrection of Christ. An historical event that for me requires no faith at all."
Now this really takes the biscuit. All I can do is shrug my shoulders in awe.
To be fair, its a connection I had not fully realised before as chistians claim the Jesus effectively became a ghost (or zombie?) so once you accept that it can happen once, it makes it far more likely that it can happen to others (although they dont have the family connections), so actually christians have to believe in ghosts as its part of their belief system. This makes the "wish thinking" case stronger as it makes it much harder for christains to not believe in ghosts as it undermines their belief system.
Up police time for other work, as it would speed things up considerably ! Can't see why
Believers in ghosts aren't pushing for this ?
What you're seeing rear its head in the form of slightly biting replies here is a mix of shock, disbelief, sorrow and overall fremdschämen amongst the "non believer" side in reaction to the "believers". We present strong reasoning to back up why beliefs in such preposterous things don't add up, and all we get in reply are either throwaway lines like "you're nuts" or the believer plays the victim when they're rightly taken to task over their thought processes (some would say lack thereof) and make a scene to get sympathy. Going into victim mode in a debate is a great sign that you don't have a leg to stand on, as if you're screaming, "I've got nothing, I must engage empathy mode to save face!" When's the last time you heard a scientist plead at a creationist for mercy in a debate, eh? It's always the other way around, if you haven't noticed. The creationist attacks the scholar and learned researcher, saying science tarnishes the freedom of their make believe time religion, that science is a coordinated attack on destroying invisible man's God's legacy, that evolution discounts and discredits the lovely act of the invisible man's God's creation of us, and blah, blah, blah. Scientists don't play victim or mewl when they're put through the ringer in a debate, they put in the work, get results and show them with everything backed up, and for what they don't know, they don't make up random and loose solutions to meet their theories.
When it comes to this paranormal nonsense, all believers have on hand are flawed and deluded personal experiences that by their very nature were open to unforeseen manipulation through faulty human memory and phenomenon acting in their environment like electrical fields that make the brain and body a breeding ground for anxiety and paranoia as you hallucinate things and can easily trick yourself into thinking you're being watched or seeing something that isn't there. Scientific theories and general logical reasoning disproves the claims of those being haunted in an overwhelming case, and those retorts lean on the knowledge we have of how the world actually works. The fact that we've seen believers arguing in this very thread that specially "tuned" brains may be a reason why some see ghosts and others don't really says it all, doesn't it?
I think we should almost feel guilty fighting back with our endlessly tested, reason-based theories, principles and laws. Sometimes it feels like we're rounding up a group of kindergarteners and trying exhaustively to break it to them that Santa doesn't actually deliver presents under their trees every Christmas. That's not meant to be an insult, it's just that sad.
My main bone of contention is as described in the italisised section of my my post eight comments above.
Just my opinion of course.
Edited recently for the purpose of clarity to include the name patb so there can be no confusion with other posters who read this reply. I hope our other learned friends pick up on it?!
As pointed out, believers portrating themselves as victims is a distraction technique...hard solid evidence would be good but we all know that there is none.
Why I showcased all popular arguments against Christ's ressurection and why after even the tiniest bit of scrutiny they all collapse like a house of Janga.
of course you still haven't answered my questions i gave 2 supernatural events witness by multiple people at the exact same time (so no hallucination poor CCTV footage or lights going on and off I don't know maybe all ghosts have OCD or something) that science can not explain. your move or shall you victimize yourself and say my ideas are to intellectually ridiculous you need to rest...
trust me You boys want evidence and event science can't explain the two give are the most popular I have far more aces up my sleeve then that. who is being "victimized" now
Science is open and honest about ignorance. It corrects itself with no cries of victim, it just moves forward (see the story from a few days ago about there being 10 times more galaxies than we had previously thought).
The key issue is how the species relates to science and its own ignorance. We should be self aware and secure about our lack of knowledge and leave the gaps open until we have the knowledge. It’s perfectly OK to say “we don’t know”.
But ghosts are the perfect example of people wanting to fill in our gaps of ignorance. What was that noise? Who moved the chair? Why did the lights go on and off? The honest answer is “we don’t know” but some can’t accept that (the same with the bigger questions that face humanity). They have to have an answer. They need something to fill the gap: no matter how unlikely it is and no matter how little evidence there is, they need that gap to be filled. And, conveniently, often, these gap fillers are theories that cannot be disproved to aid their longivity.
There are so many examples of where our knowledge has increased and we have really filled the gaps and the original silly theories are dropped like hot potatoes and there are other examples of where the gaps have been filled (Galileo) but the previously established narrative dominated due to “wish thinking”.
And let's not forget one detail: you make the positive claim you provide the evidence to support it.
Yet the priests are the ones believing in souls and thus whose positions on ghosts, holy or not, are more in tune with the believers in the paranormal. Labeling someone "dogmatic" does not make him so. But I guess it's a good cop out as any. "Show you evidence that I saw a ghost? You're dogmatic!"