FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


ghosts are they real??






do you believe in ghosts
yes
52%
 52%  [ 21 ]
no
47%
 47%  [ 19 ]
Total Votes : 40

Gundamxxg
i think they are what about you?

this is one thing of semi proof, some of the instances are a lil skeptical.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5406487197364769612&q=ghosts&hl=en

post some answers and why you think what you think, examples would be awesome.
Soulfire
Well, I believe that ghosts exist in the form of a temptation of Satan.
HoboPelican
Soulfire wrote:
Well, I believe that ghosts exist in the form of a temptation of Satan.


Intriguing idea, Soulfire. I never heard that thought before. Any chance I could get you to elaborate?
gnllr
I too believe that satan uses things like "ghosts" and "aliens" to divert attention away from his followers--demons. The Bible speaks of demons as wandering fallen angels. They are not omnipresent like God is.

I have been attacked at night by demons. I say they were demons because they were mocking Jesus name. One big one actually pushed me in my bed. I was conscience while this was happening. Yet, the Bible teaches that He (the Holy Spirit) who is in us (believers in Jesus' death and resurrection for the forgiveness of our sins) is GREATER than he who is in the world (Satan). This truth has comforted me often. Satan is trying to tear down Christians.

Glen
Soulfire
The Bible tells us to stay away from Wicca, Witchcraft, the dead, spirits (excluding the Holy Spirit, of course), divination, etc. (If you want, I can give you the verses).

But my theory is that the "ghosts" we see and feel are temptations of Satan. The ghosts are an attempt by Satan to get us to believe in the ghosts, communicating with the dead, divination, etc. They are an attempt to get us to go against the Bible, to ignore God's word, which will strain our relationship with God.

I hope that makes sense.
swapnalokam
ohhh shoot.. hahaha... I couldn't help laughing.. sorry guys.. maybe cause I am from different part of the world.. what ever the heck you do.. you just don't want to take responsiblity for it.. and just dump it on satan or his temtations.. and when did ghosts took a partnership with satan.. I mean what exactly are you saying as ghosts.. Dracula, the great invention of Bram Stoker or something like casper.. or in like constantine.. or just for the things that happens and no explanation..
Soulfire
What have we done? What are we to take responsibility for?

I stated my belief, but apparently that's not the way things go around here. You're not allowed to have an opinion. But the Bible is *clear* about Satan and his temptations, so no, I'm not dumping it on him - that's just the way it is. He's evil, he tries to get you to go away from God. Ghosts are one of his tools.

Ghosts aren't partners with Satan - I don't know where you got that idea. And Dracula wasn't a ghost, he was a vampire - and a fictional, mythical creation - nonexistant. The same can be said for casper.

Anything intelligent to add?
Rad Ultima 2
Wow, I never thought that Satan would use ghosts to try to tempt us. That's quite an interesting thought to it. Personally, I cannot really say what I think on ghosts, since I have never witnessed them... lol
Keran
From what nerds from Discovery Science tells me spiritual world can exist and we can see ghosts or their actions sometimes...
So i guess i believe in spirits... hm...
Lord Klorel
i am also a believer that ghosts can excist. Sometimes i have the idea that a ghost sends signals to me.
Specially when i have a problem that i can't solve and suddenly i see the picture for solving that problem.
Also when i am working on my job and i must lift some artefacts and they are beyond my controle and suddenly i have found the power to fullfill the job.

I know it sounds crazy, but that are the things that i experience.
Biodiesel
Entertaining as it is to read how crazy people are....no.
woundedhealer
Quote:
The Bible tells us to stay away from Wicca, Witchcraft, the dead, spirits (excluding the Holy Spirit, of course), divination, etc. (If you want, I can give you the verses).

The religion Wicca only came into exsistance in 1956. It was invented by Gerald Gardener.

Ghosts can be divided into two phenomina.

1) They are the spirits of those who have died but either have not moved on. or come back in visitation.

2) They are like a video recording caught in time which plays over and over again.

I myself have seen spirits. I used to have one in my home, but now just comes back from time to time in visitation.



Quote:
i am also a believer that ghosts can excist. Sometimes i have the idea that a ghost sends signals to me.
Specially when i have a problem that i can't solve and suddenly i see the picture for solving that problem.
Also when i am working on my job and i must lift some artefacts and they are beyond my controle and suddenly i have found the power to fullfill the job.

This is probably your spirit guide, so don't forget to thank her/him when you've been helped.

I don't understand why ghosts are thought to be evil. If they were nice people when they were alive, then surely, they are going to be equaly as nice when they are in spirit form. I accept there are some unpleasent ghosts, but they were bad people when they were alive.
eggg
I have a good friend who claims the house he grew up in is haunted. He says he and the ghosts eventually made peace. It's quite an old house, built around the turn of the century (er um, the turn of the century before last). I'll be moving into it soon, so I suppose I'll have to make peace with them too...

In seriousness, I'm of the opinion that things like this, and most things addressed by organized religion, are mysteries. And the truth of these mysteries cannot be known by man, through "revelation" or otherwise. When we join the realm of the dead, we'll know about it, but until then one should keep an open mind. Certainly, I don't believe that the five senses of man can discern universal truths, so I don't believe that science can prove or disprove the existence of spirit.
Soulfire
Quote:
The religion Wicca only came into exsistance in 1956. It was invented by Gerald Gardener.

Ghosts can be divided into two phenomina.

1) They are the spirits of those who have died but either have not moved on. or come back in visitation.

2) They are like a video recording caught in time which plays over and over again.

I myself have seen spirits. I used to have one in my home, but now just comes back from time to time in visitation.

I didn't mean that the Bible was directly referring to Wicca, but that it was referring, instead, to things of the nature of Wicca.
pampoon
I myself have come to believe that the label of 'ghost' has come from centeries of paranormal events. I think that yes, there are spirits who roam the Earth (for what ever reason, may they be good or bad) to fufill a duty from either God or Satan.

I don't believe that spirits are evil, exactly, I just think that 'ghosts' have become known to be a haunting paranormal event. Ghosts were considered a part of Halloween and other cultural fastivals, but influences from Hollywood and the Melting Pot of America have spread the idea and turned it into something different.

Okay, so i'm somewhat babbling now Smile . This is what I believe (which is what the topic asks for: "Do you believe they exist?"), I am not forcing you to believe them and i could care less if you didn't.

God bless,
Pampoon
woundedhealer
Quote:
Ghosts were considered a part of Halloween and other cultural fastivals, but influences from Hollywood and the Melting Pot of America have spread the idea and turned it into something different.

The original festival, called Samhain is still a very important festival today amongst pagans. We believe that at Samhain the veils between the realms are at their thinest, allowing the blessed ansestors to enter into this realm. It is a time when we think about our ancestors who have passed on, particularly in the last year. Although we don't sumon them, we do invite them to join us if they wish.

Incidently, the word bonfire comes from bonefire. The bones of those who had passed on in the previous year would have been put on the bonefire. There is a lot more to this sacred festival than this, but it is not relevant to this topic.
bongoman
The fact that there is a great deal of things we don't know about the universe and that we learn every now and again makes me consider that it is a possibility. But then to see one or claim to see one is another thing, and then how do you go about prooving that it was a ghost? How do you proove the existence of something like that?
Shike
Yes there are ghosts in the world (in my belief). THey can actually, again in my belief, be either of living or dead people. My rationale for this is Astral Projection. A spirit can leave the body for a time and travel, thus becoming a ghost.

THe other kind is the "lost" spirit of a dead person who hasn't found their way to the Otherworld, or they have crossed back to check on their descendants.

There are many explinations for these phenomena. The ones above are actually only a fragment of my particular beliefs on the matter, but probably the most relavent.
woundedhealer
bongoman wrote:
But then to see one or claim to see one is another thing, and then how do you go about prooving that it was a ghost? How do you proove the existence of something like that?


You can only prove it to yourself. You can tell other people about your experiences, but it's up to them if they believe you or not. In my own case, other family members have also seen the spirit we have in our home. They've also witnesed other phenomina, sometimes at the same time as other family members and sometimes by thenselves, which defies any natural explanation. To quote Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, “When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains--however improbable--must be the truth.”

One question a lot of people ask is how did I first realise we had a spirit. Excluding the fact that as soon as my daughter was old enough to talk, she would point and say "there's my friend ghostie", the wierdest time being when she "saw" her friend ghostie outside the local co-op.

I noticed things were being moved around in my home. I would go down in the morning to find items had been moved, which was strange because at that time I was the last to bed at night and first to get up in the morning. Every night before going to bed I would line up the ornaments on top of the fire mantle so they were in line with the tiles, and sure enough, when I went down in the morning they would be moved. I also became aware of other things happening.

In the end, I went to see an old neighbour to find out the history of myhouse, only to discover she knew about the spirit and told me about it. To cut a long story short, a previous owner went into a coma at home and died 3 days later without regaining consousness. She loved her home, and she worked at the local co-op Exclamation
desertwind
Ghosts do exists.





Well.... BOOOO!!!
Dougnut King
I believe that spirits can contact the living, but we shouldn't be afraid of them, just because they died. Why the F*** would they want to haunt us any way??? Rolling Eyes
bulek
Yes I believe in ghosts. There are many stories and pictures of them so it must be something Wink
Josephwweaver
unlike most evangelical christians i do believe in Ghosts, it wild how christians say they dont believe in ghosts but they believe in the holy spirit or holy ghost depending on who you as, and i didnt believe in ghost till a few years ago, i could tell ya stories that wold make the hair on ya arms stand up, LOL Grandma use to tell me if i saw a ghost in black to ask it what it wants in the name of Jesus , but ghost in white wont hurt you. lol
QrafTee
I like how religion... Christianity can be slapped onto anything including ghosts and make it sound plausible. Next step, combine Christianity with evolution. Hah, I dare you to try that!
woundedhealer
Nature-based religions have always believed in ghosts and I think this might be a reason why religions like Christianity refute their existence.


Quote:
it wild how christians say they dont believe in ghosts but they believe in the holy spirit or holy ghost


That's one thing I don't understand. If it's neccessary to call the spirit or ghost "holy", there must be others or it wouldn't be neccessary to use the prefix "holy".

Quote:
I believe that spirits can contact the living, but we shouldn't be afraid of them, just because they died. Why the F*** would they want to haunt us any way???

I agree. Unfortunately programs like Most Haunted are drawing attention to the more unpleasent spirits, and people think these are typical of spirits. this really isn't true. I've never felt threatened by a spirit. Most of those who contact me want me to pass a message on to a loved one for them.
divinitywolf
Some scientists belive ghosts are nothing but a trick of the mind yet i belive that they are real. I have several beliefs as to what ghosts may be. They might be souls. You might become a ghost after you die or they could be beings from a paralell universe showing through from time to time. I have seen ghosts but i dont really know what they are yet.
mike1reynolds
Soulfire wrote:
The Bible tells us to stay away from Wicca, Witchcraft, the dead, spirits (excluding the Holy Spirit, of course), divination, etc. (If you want, I can give you the verses).

The Holy Spirit isn’t a dead spirit. I believe that the Bible says to stay away from mediums, but it doesn’t say that you can’t commune with your departed love ones. I have conversations with my deceased grandparents and great grandmother in dreams on an occasional basis, and I don’t think the Bible has anything against this, even though I think it is real and not just a dream.

Soulfire wrote:
But my theory is that the "ghosts" we see and feel are temptations of Satan. The ghosts are an attempt by Satan to get us to believe in the ghosts, communicating with the dead, divination, etc. They are an attempt to get us to go against the Bible, to ignore God's word, which will strain our relationship with God.

The Bible is explicitly warning about spiritual dangers, not making an academic warning against superstition. I’m not aware of any passage in the Bible that advises against superstition. By changing the danger from a real spiritual one to merely the “danger” of falling into superstition, you are basically poo-pooing these warnings in the Bible. So you have it backwards, it is actually the denial of ghosts that demeans the Bible’s warnings about mediums and spiritualists.
smarter
There are no such things as ghosts, aliens, demons etc

Don't watch TV too much.

I have never seen such thing. Neither any of my acquaintances.
tomahawk19
Shike wrote:
Yes there are ghosts in the world (in my belief). THey can actually, again in my belief, be either of living or dead people. My rationale for this is Astral Projection. A spirit can leave the body for a time and travel, thus becoming a ghost.


Interestingly enough, I had some research done on my brain, and the doctors that performed the research, you can research him Dr. Vernon Neppe, deduced that my brain activity is that which leads to having the ability to project myself somewhere else, whether it be on purpose or unconsciously. It would explain why I have people walking up to me telling me they saw me somewhere that I wasn't. They also found that my brain activity also leads to what is essentially a medium. That I have the ability to notice phenomena that the normal mind can't pick up. That's just my belief with their research. I have no need to explain myself to anyone, if you wish to believe it, then believe it, if not, no harm no foul.
Coclus
I don't believe in gosts and I'm shocked how many people do actually believe in them...
divinitywolf
smarter wrote:
There are no such things as ghosts, aliens, demons etc

Don't watch TV too much.

I have never seen such thing. Neither any of my acquaintances.


just because you havent seen them doesnt mean they're not there. I mean how can you be so sure. WE cant prove they do or dont exist therefore you cant say that these things definitely dont or do exist. Its just a matter of opinion.
woundedhealer
Coclus wrote:
I don't believe in gosts and I'm shocked how many people do actually believe in them...


Why should this shock you? Just because you don't believe in them doesn't mean they don't exsist.

I have inherited the ability to see spirits. I believe some people are more able to see them. Children in particular have this ability. As they grow older they may lose this ability, probably because they are told not to be so silly, or ghosts doen't exsist.

Within my family it is common for young children to see spirits. They are able to talk freely about who they see. This is also true of any other psychic gift they have. For instance, during the last World Cup, one young lad predicted Englands scores. Some people weren't very happy when he told them the final (losing) score, but after the second correct prediction, people started asking the score of the next game. He knows not to gain from this ability, so refused to tell anyone who wanted to put a bet on. Sorry to have gone of topic. Got a bit carried away. Smile
divinitywolf
i'd love to have that ability. Yet some scientists say its a medical condition. Theres a medical condition for people to look at colours and automatically hear sounds so why shouldn't there be more stranger and more unusual medical conditions. Maybe thats all ghosts are...
woundedhealer
divinitywolf wrote:
i'd love to have that ability. Yet some scientists say its a medical condition. Theres a medical condition for people to look at colours and automatically hear sounds so why shouldn't there be more stranger and more unusual medical conditions. Maybe thats all ghosts are...


I believe there was a time when we all had psychic abilities but have lost them through not using them. By your name you appear to be a spirital person, if you work at it you may find you do have some psychic abilities. Even those who have them work at improving them.
Vrythramax
I can't quote any factual evidence.....but I do believe that spirit lives on after the body dies.......and they are not always happy about it. Sad

If they are malevolent or not ,I think it has to with the death of the body....either via violence, or they think it was not thier time.
woundedhealer
Vrythramax wrote:
I can't quote any factual evidence.....but I do believe that spirit lives on after the body dies.......and they are not always happy about it. Sad

If they are malevolent or not ,I think it has to with the death of the body....either via violence, or they think it was not thier time.


Why should they be unhappy about still having an existence. What they are unhappy about is the loss of their earthly life.

Some spirits do remain earthbound. Some may not realise they are no longer alive. This could certainly be the case with someone whose life ended abruptly. Someone from the Otherworld or a medium from this one helps these people to pass over.

Some are so attached to their homes or families they don't want to leave. This is what hapened with spirit who is now in visitation in my home. I found out from a neighbour that she really loved her home, so it makes sense that she didn't want to leave. She stayed in my home for many years, but at some point decided it as time to go. Now she just visits. It's possible that someone who had been really nasty in life is afraid to go on to the next place.
dan751
I don't believe that an apparition of a ghost is necessarily an evil spirit or a temptation of Satan. Although, they could be. I think they can be either. I do however, believe that spirits can be troubled while living and be stuck to the earth before they're reincarnated. And they either take it out on others, or not. And they would stay somewhere that they were troubled until they were able to move on.
The apartment I lived in July 2010 - January 2011, there was a spirit there (and quite possibly still is). Late at night, when we were alone, we heard bangs against the wall and creaking of stairs and scared the hell out of the cat, every night, between 3-4 AM, without fail. The theory is that someone was probably pushed down the staircase to their death, as all the occurrences are around the stairwell. I don't think that spirit was evil, rather troubled, and took its frustrations out on anyone who occupied that space. I think it was just looking for help, so it could move on.
On the other hand, spirits that mock Christ's name, they're obviously evil spirits.

@WoundedHealer: About psychic abilities, I believe that everyone still has them, but are now laying dormant in most because of not exercising their use, in other words, use it or loose it. Wink
truespeed
Is it merely a coincidence that its the people of religion who believe in Ghosts ?

Their critical thinking seems to have been erased by religion,so that any mad theory can be seen as perfectly normal and plausible.

I already know the replies,"well just because ghosts can't be proven doesn't mean they are not real"

Ditto: Psychic abilities.

Ditto: Any other madcap thing that is unverifiable.
dan751
@truespeed: I was born into and raised a Jehovah Witness, I'm not now. Quite honestly, I'm not religious. Rather, I like to call myself, spiritual. There IS a difference. Wink The Jehovah Witness belief on ghosts, is that they're evil spirits associated with Satan, and not troubled souls that are stuck on the earth. I don't agree with them, as stated by my earlier post.
But hey, these are just my opinions.
loremar
I don't believe in ghosts but my mind believes in them. I can't help myself but I am really afraid in the dark. I always felt that something or someone is lurking behind me or someone would just suddenly appear from the dark with a very ghastly ugly face. Anxious
truespeed
dan751 wrote:
I'm not religious. Rather, I like to call myself, spiritual. There IS a difference.


If you follow the bible then that makes you religious,as you follow a particular faith,no?

Spiritual But Not Religious
dan751
truespeed wrote:

If you follow the bible then that makes you religious,as you follow a particular faith,no?

Spiritual But Not Religious

//This is really going off topic by the way..
No, not really. I guess in a sense, but not in the whole. I believe in a number of aspects of different religions, yet, I personally reject organized religions on Earth as a whole. The thing with organized religion is the members are generally confined one idea, practice and belief. Non-organized, (or non-conformation), is having your own ideas, and worshiping with yourself, and not with a group. The "particular faith", I guess you could say, that I believe God made us, authored the Bible, and has given us a hope of eternal life. You can call me a Christian (a follower of Christ, not a follower of religion) , but I reject Catholic, Lutheran, Pentecostal, and any other organized "Christian" based religion one can possibly think of.

Wikipedia : Spiritual But Not Religious : Religious verses Spirituality wrote:
It has been suggested that one possible way to differentiate among the three constructs of religion, religiousness and spirituality, is to view religion as primarily a social phenomenon while understanding spirituality on an individual level. Religiousness is generally viewed as being rooted in religion, whereas this is not necessarily the case for spirituality. It is noteworthy that when studying differences between those claiming to be religious and those claiming to be spiritual, found that God is viewed as loving, forgiving, and nonjudgmental by those who considered themselves spiritual, whereas those identifying themselves as religious saw God as more judgmental.

The last two sentences summarize what I believe. I also believe that psychic abilities are God-given gifts, in which to be used to help others in their spiritual growth. Call me crazy for having such mixed ideas, but hey, these are my opinions. You don't have to agree with them. Smile
truespeed
Christianity is a religion,you may not associate your self with a particular branch of christianity but to say your not religious while at the same time saying you think God authored the bible upon which you live your life by seems to me a little odd.
dan751
truespeed wrote:
Christianity is a religion,you may not associate your self with a particular branch of christianity but to say your not religious while at the same time saying you think God authored the bible upon which you live your life by seems to me a little odd.

I am an oddball (not afraid to admit Razz). I personally don't think anyone (except my girlfriend) on this earth can properly understand me. Somehow, not even my own mother and father can understand me properly. Nobody ever associates psychics and the Bible together, and yet, I believe they're both God-given. I am a weird one, aren't I?

The way I see it:
Before the Bible, before Jesus Christ, was still worship to God, outside of religion. With the rise and reformation of religions after Christ's first coming, we were now given the option of religion toward the same general end, worship to God.
catscratches
dan751 wrote:
Nobody ever associates psychics and the Bible together, and yet, I believe they're both God-given.
Perhaps so because the Bible clearly condemns anyone who does so? Deuteronomy 18:10–13 Leviticus 20:27
dan751
catscratches wrote:
dan751 wrote:
Nobody ever associates psychics and the Bible together, and yet, I believe they're both God-given.
Perhaps so because the Bible clearly condemns anyone who does so? Deuteronomy 18:10–13 Leviticus 20:27

In my opinion:
Psychics are completely different from spirit mediums and sorcerers my friend. Wink
Bikerman
dan751 wrote:
catscratches wrote:
dan751 wrote:
Nobody ever associates psychics and the Bible together, and yet, I believe they're both God-given.
Perhaps so because the Bible clearly condemns anyone who does so? Deuteronomy 18:10–13 Leviticus 20:27

In my opinion:
Psychics are completely different from spirit mediums and sorcerers my friend. Wink

The bible condemn 'divination' and 'fortune telling' which is, as far as I can tell, exactly what your girlfriend practices...
dan751
@Bikerman: Could you play along just for a minute? Smile
Let's just pretend that psychic abilities actually do exist, for the sake of story? And please, keep the cold reading aside for the sake of story.
Although, divination and fortune telling CAN be accessed and utilized with said psychic abilities. Yet, God says not to engage in divination or fortune telling. My girlfriend can read energies, tell people whether they're on the right path, and give guidance to help get them on the right path. But she cannot/will not tell them what the future holds for them, that by definition, would be fortune telling. Fortune telling usually involves exchange of money (which she does not accept) and the use of tools, such as crystal balls, tarot card, crystals, ect (also, which she does not use).

Psychic is such a very broad term and is far to often associated very much with divination and fortune telling, almost exclusively. Reiki healing is the healing of physical body problems through use of energy, which by root of concept, is a psychic ability, yet, has nothing to do reading or guidance.
Okay, let's stop pretending, Bikerman.

Let's put this into a real world example.
To illustrate: Let's pretend that Bikerman is an expert bomb technician. You know full well how to make bombs and how to disarm them. Bombs can be very useful in helping people, example, bringing down an old building to construct a new one. The skills are equally useful in the effort disarm and save lives. Now, you COULD use those skills to rob a bank. But is it morally right?

The expertise of a bomb technician can be likened to the psychic powers someone may possess. They can be used for benefit people. Yet, there is also the possibility of using such skills/powers for personal gain/ wrongful intent.
I'm not saying Bikerman has psychic abilities, nor am I saying he doesn't. For the sake of argument, I mirrored the issue to a real world example. What could be considered morally acceptable or not.

Although the Bible doesn't explicitly discuss psychics anywhere, the stated scriptures does suggest the possibility of psychics being real, even though it's not clearly stated. The fact that the concept of psychics are almost exclusively referred to as divination or fortune telling is why people condemn psychics as a whole. Yes, psychic abilities and divination/fortune telling are connected, but they're not exclusive, it's much broader than that.

This is what I mean by my earlier posts in saying they're different and saying that my girlfriend doesn't engage in said condemned practices.
Bikerman
This is just a semantic quibble. There is no doubt about what was meant in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
Do you seriously doubt that your girlfriend would have been burned as a witch in the middle ages? Many women were, for much less.
If your girlfriend can tell people if they are on the right path then she is, by definition, fortune telling. The fact that she does not charge and does not use a crystal ball is completely irrelevant since the bible mentions neither.

PS - bombs are never 'useful'. You don't build a bomb to demolish a building. The only reason for building a bomb is to kill people and/or destroy property.
watersoul
dan751 wrote:
the stated scriptures does suggest the possibility of psychics being real

Thats interesting, could I ask which scriptures you think suggest this, and how/why?
dan751
Bikerman wrote:
There is no doubt about what was meant in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

Yes.
Bikerman wrote:

Do you seriously doubt that your girlfriend would have been burned as a witch in the middle ages? Many women were, for much less.
If your girlfriend can tell people if they are on the right path then she is, by definition, fortune telling.
The fact that she does not charge and does not use a crystal ball is completely irrelevant since the bible mentions neither.

1. She may have been in a past life. I don't know.
2. And a teacher telling the student who got an F on his test that he's "on the right track" is the educational equal to fortune telling. The telling fortunes, is exactly that, "your going to have many riches tomorrow"? Not the assessment of where someone is improving their overall school grade/"on the right track", be it factual or other means. So, no. I can't agree with you there.
3. The Bible doesn't mention reincarnation either. What's your point?

Bikerman wrote:

PS - bombs are never 'useful'. You don't build a bomb to demolish a building. The only reason for building a bomb is to kill people and/or destroy property.

And I'm Mary Poppins! Right! Try reading about building implosions HERE before you stake such a claim. Wink

watersoul wrote:
Thats interesting, could I ask which scriptures you think suggest this, and how/why?

Uhm... Deuteronomy 18:10–13 and Leviticus 20:27 ??
That's what catscratches threw at me. As that's what he and others condemn those
While it talks about those particular psychic practices, it does not mention the many other types of psychic practices.
catscratches
dan751 wrote:

Bikerman wrote:

PS - bombs are never 'useful'. You don't build a bomb to demolish a building. The only reason for building a bomb is to kill people and/or destroy property.

And I'm Mary Poppins! Right! Try reading about building implosions HERE before you stake such a claim. Wink
Bombs aren't used in building implosions (or tunnel constructions or mining or anything like that). A bomb isn't just an explosive. A bomb is:
thefreedictionary wrote:
1.
a. An explosive weapon detonated by impact, proximity to an object, a timing mechanism, or other means.
b. An atomic or nuclear bomb. Used with the.
2. Any of various weapons detonated to release destructive material, such as smoke or gas.
A bomb is an explosive used as a weapon / as part of a weapon. A weapon is intended to harm and/or kill.
Bluedoll
bomb
3. any kind of publication that does have a potential to explode

bombed
1. does not measure up! – ghost writer


dan751 you asked Bikerman what his point was for mentioning the bible in his post. I can tell you exactly what Bikerman meant if you read his statement of his semantic quibble as he states he actually thinks he has the authority to declare what the bible does mean. The problem is his horned projections are of atheist intention and his frontal lobes are a Catholic deception which is another way of saying he knows nothing of what the bible means.

God did not write but inspired the bible. This is true, the same as Leviticus 20:27 is not a literal order but a statement nevertheless to consider. But this consideration has little to do with the physical, the only thing some people understand.


    Call in an angel and you are calling for some peace, call in destruction for spiritual demolition and destruction is what you will get!

Quote:
Say it again
War, whoa, Lord
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me
War, it ain't nothing but a heartbreaker
War, friend only to the undertaker
Peace, love and understanding
Tell me, is there no place for them today
They say we must fight to keep our freedom
But Lord knows there's got to be a better way


from the song ‘war’ written by EDWIN STARR
deanhills
truespeed wrote:
Their critical thinking seems to have been erased by religion,so that any mad theory can be seen as perfectly normal and plausible.
WOW!!!!! So all of those who are religious can't think critically because their critical thinking has been erased. Now that is certainly a sign of faulty critical thinking. Sort of thinking with blinkers on. I do believe that there are religious nuts as much as there are atheist nuts. But I also believe that you can be religious and be a brilliant scientist as well. The two are not mutually exclusive. And as you know, to be a scientist, you pretty much have to have your critical thinking together. I believe that a scientific study has been done on this topic, I'll try and dig it up for you.

Here it is:
Quote:
First, we may need to modify our initial thinking about scientists and religious beliefs. That is, it is not necessarily inconsistent to be a scientist and to hold a strong religious perspective.

Source:
Comparison of religiosity levels between scientists and non-scientists by O'Connor, Arthur L., Jr., Ph.D., Walden University, 2010 , 180 pages; AAT 3398975
truespeed
deanhills wrote:
truespeed wrote:
Their critical thinking seems to have been erased by religion,so that any mad theory can be seen as perfectly normal and plausible.
WOW!!!!! So all of those who are religious can't think critically because their critical thinking has been erased. Now that is certainly a sign of faulty critical thinking. Sort of thinking with blinkers on. I do believe that there are religious nuts as much as there are atheist nuts. But I also believe that you can be religious and be a brilliant scientist as well. The two are not mutually exclusive. And as you know, to be a scientist, you pretty much have to have your critical thinking together. I believe that a scientific study has been done on this topic, I'll try and dig it up for you.

Here it is:
Quote:
First, we may need to modify our initial thinking about scientists and religious beliefs. That is, it is not necessarily inconsistent to be a scientist and to hold a strong religious perspective.

Source:
Comparison of religiosity levels between scientists and non-scientists by O'Connor, Arthur L., Jr., Ph.D., Walden University, 2010 , 180 pages; AAT 3398975


The fact that some scientists are religious is meaningless,lets take the bible,if you broke down what a religious scientist believed compared to a non scientific believer,i doubt many would say they believed in the creation theory,i doubt many would say they believed in the flood,if they did then i would suggest they weren't very good scientists.

This topic is about ghosts,there is no evidence whatsoever that they exist,so why believe in them?
Bikerman
Yes, this is often the subject of misconception. 'Religious' covers a huge range from fundy Creationists through to agnostic deists or even pantheists. For example, the religious often claim Einstein as one of their own, and we know that he did not describe himself as an atheist. If we are to call what Einstein believed (basically a weak form of Spinoza's pantheism) 'religious' then it is not at all surprising that many scientists are also religious.
Any scientist who believes in the literality of Genesis is unlikely to be a 'brilliant' scientist. In fact I can't think of a single example in the modern world. For some reason, not entirely clear to me, the leading 'academics' in ID/creationism tend to be engineers, not scientists (Walt Brown & Henry Morris to name but 2). The only creationist scientists I know would be Duane Gish and Robert Gentry - and neither of them could be called 'brilliant' - even with a long run-up, downhill, and the wind behind you.
Bluedoll
I really need to understand all this from the perspective of admission of ignorance. I have to concede that I have little interest in surveys and statistics as applied to scientists so anything I am told here about that, I may have to take it as possibly true. Survey says, “scientists score low as creationists.” What is the point?

To be religious is not necessarily being a ‘creationist” as the definition is being applied in these threads by some members.

A person can have a very strong belief in the bible, a very strong belief in spirituality, a very strong belief in God and not be those of the ‘sect of literalism of Genesis’ as it is often being described in the forum here. A person of free will can choose to have a religious belief in what they want, even without any evidence relating to science. This does not mean their belief will need to conflict with all their life choices, that they will become inferior or if they choose a career what ever it may be, even as a scientist, does it mean their abilities are at question. I do need to agree that if a ‘religious’ person is being defined the way it often is, as one who believes in a scientific Genesis would not be a brilliant scientist but only because they have been pigeon holed by defining them as retarded and therefore, their work as faulty. A brilliant person can maintain their brilliancy and still believe in the bible as long as they do not follow the label as it has being defined.

Science and religion need not be in conflict.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science#2001.E2.80.93today_.2821st_century.29

The same applies to ‘ghosts’. If they are defined as fictional weird illusions made up by fake exhibitionists then indeed they will be nothing more than that. Science can investigate and have little difficulty exposing the falsehood of fakes but will have a lot of difficulty, in fact, depending on the research, perhaps impossible, to make sense of any spiritual relationship. Religion and scientific evidence have little to do with each other in many areas. One needs also to define ‘ghosts’ in relation to the topic. For example, does it mean apparitions as in the dead or the holy ghost as in God? To talk about one does not necessarily prove or discredit the other.

I can proof that God exists. This can be accomplished by spiritual means, not by scientific means. Pray to God daily and express how much of an idiot you have been and then you might see some results! However, scientifically, God is not in question because what is ‘real’ in the physical world is not real in the spiritual world and visa versa. Trying to use science for everything is like trying to fly, by flapping your ears. The same could also be said for religion if someone would be so stupid as to try to pray lab experiments into existence. Get real here!
Bikerman
Err...we ARE real. That is sort of the whole point.
What you call 'spiritual' is what I call imaginary. Anything that interacts with the universe in any way can be measured (by definition). If it doesn't interact with the universe in any way then it is not worth worrying about because it has no ability to change anything. Anything that can be measured can be examined scientifically - including God. In fact most religious claims are ultimately scientific claims. Any claim that religion makes about the universe, if it can be measured, is scientific.

Any scientist who believes that there was a global flood several thousand years ago, that evolution is a myth and the rest of the Genesis nonsense is a very BAD scientist. The evidence is overwhelming and any scientist who cannot accept what the evidence shows is no sort of scientist that I recognise and would certainly not be taken seriously by his/her peers.
Sure, scientists can be, and many are, religious. If that faith conflicts with their science - as it does with creationism and similar nonsense - then they have a choice. They can continue to be a sceintist or they can be a creationist.
I deny that a person can be a brilliant scientist and hold that the genesis account is true. It was possible centuries ago, because we didn't have the evidence. It isn't possible now. A scientist is bound to go where the evidence leads. To deny that evidence is profoundly anti-scientific.
Of course I don't have to speculate - there ARE no creationists who are brilliant scientists. The idea that this is because they would be discriminated against is nonsense. Controlling scientists is like herding cats - they don't like to be told what to believe. The simple fact is that a literal interpretation of Genesis is so mind-bogglingly stupid that anyone who holds to it is either mad, bad, or ignorant. The Religious have known this for over a millenium. Thomas Aquinas cautioned against taking Genesis too literally and making scripture look foolish. Or what about Augustine
Quote:
The intentions of the author of Genesis differ – perhaps entirely – from what a Christian is to make of them

It is only modern day creationists who actually believe the nonsense they do, and I'm afraid it is because they are profoundly ignorant of science, out for power/money, or rather challenged in the reasoning department.
One fact is quite illuminating - I have never come across a noteworthy apologist for creationism who does not lie routinely and shamelessly.

PS - lest I be accused of an ad-hominem on creationsts, I will back up that assertion. Major creationism apologists:
Ken Ham - serial liar
Kent Hovind - convicted felon
Phillip Morris - dead serial liar
Dembski - serial liar
Those are the most notable apologists for most people methinks....
deanhills
truespeed wrote:
The fact that some scientists are religious is meaningless,lets take the bible,if you broke down what a religious scientist believed compared to a non scientific believer,i doubt many would say they believed in the creation theory,i doubt many would say they believed in the flood,if they did then i would suggest they weren't very good scientists.

This topic is about ghosts,there is no evidence whatsoever that they exist,so why believe in them?
Truespeed I'm calling you on your statement that people of religion has no critical thinking abilities. This is the statement you made:
Quote:
Is it merely a coincidence that its the people of religion who believe in Ghosts ? Their critical thinking seems to have been erased by religion,so that any mad theory can be seen as perfectly normal and plausible.

I went to quite a lot of trouble to prove to you that critical thinking and being religious are mutually exclusive. And we are not talking about SOME scientists here. Quite a large number of scientists are religious. I showed you proof of a study that being religious does not mean you can't be a good scientist.

So your theory:
Quote:
Their critical thinking seems to have been erased by religion,so that any mad theory can be seen as perfectly normal and plausible.
is completely out of whack with reality. I'd go as far to say that your view of theists is affecting your critical thinking negatively. It's never good to stereotype anyone, and the reverse applies as well, i.e. theists stereotyping atheists. That's like putting blinkers on.
Bikerman
Quote:
I went to quite a lot of trouble to prove to you that critical thinking and being religious are mutually exclusive. And we are not talking about SOME scientists here. I went to a lot of trouble to show to you that the majority of scientists are religious.
The first sentence is spot on, but I doubt you meant it. The second and third statements are wrong/untrue. You haven't shown the majority of scientists are religious - or if you did then I missed it, and we ARE talking SOME scientists, by definition.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
I went to quite a lot of trouble to prove to you that critical thinking and being religious are mutually exclusive. And we are not talking about SOME scientists here. I went to a lot of trouble to show to you that the majority of scientists are religious.
The first sentence is spot on, but I doubt you meant it.
I don't know which sentence you mean, nor why you should say that I did not mean it? That has to be presumptuous in capital letters.

Bikerman wrote:
The second and third statements are wrong/untrue. You haven't shown the majority of scientists are religious - or if you did then I missed it, and we ARE talking SOME scientists, by definition.
Well then go back and read the literature that I took enormous trouble to present. I think it must have taken me almost an hour to work through. The least you can do is check through it before you shoot it down. Isn't that usually what scientists do, check through the materials first and then come to their conclusion?
Bikerman
So, now that I gave you a chance to retract and you haven't, I'm free to use your sentence as a quote in good faith. Critical thinking and being religious are mutually exclusive - you have proved it. That's what you said and that's what you now confirm is correct.

I can only say - absolutely. I'm surprised that you have switched positions, but I'm always happy for anyone to see the light.

PS - I don't know what you think your link says, but it doesn't say that the majority of scientists are religious. If that took you so long then....gee-wizz....

It took me 2 minutes to find the following (based on a MUCH bigger sample than a 200 person phone poll).



Now, note that 1/3rd believe in God (whatever you want to call 'God') and about another 20% in a 'higher power' - which could be anything from Spinoza's pantheism, through to the much weaker Einstein version. One thing it isn't is a personal God. As I said before, if you want to call Einstein religious then you can, but it has bugger-all to do with God, creation and miracles.
Note also - this is for AMERICA - the most religious country in the west. When you figure in an equal number of European scientists then religion quickly becomes a minority view - however you define religion.
There are many 'higher power' candidates:


PS - he poll I cited is from :
http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2009/07/are-american-scientists-getting-more.html
truespeed
deanhills wrote:


I went to quite a lot of trouble to prove to you that critical thinking and being religious are mutually exclusive. And we are not talking about SOME scientists here. Quite a large number of scientists are religious. I showed you proof of a study that being religious does not mean you can't be a good scientist.



I have seen the stats posted on here previously regarding religiosity of the scientifiic community. Again i refer you to my previous post regarding how religious they are,i would suggest,and i have no evidence for this,that they may beleive in a higher power,they may even be Christian or Muslim for instance,but if any of them see the bible as the word of God and believe all that is written therin,then they wouldn't be good scientists.

My statement was a bit of a blanket statement and wasn't really fair,if your a scientist and a good one then i suppose it goes without saying that you have critical thinking as it is almost a job requirement,

Perhaps my comment should of been that the religious folk who believe in creation theory/the flood/the devil etc are more likely to also believe in ghosts/psychics/mediums/astral projection because they lack critical thinking and the reason they lack critical thinking is because they have turned it off due to religion.

.

deanhills wrote:

. I'd go as far to say that your view of theists is affecting your critical thinking negatively. It's never good to stereotype anyone, and the reverse applies as well, i.e. theists stereotyping atheists. That's like putting blinkers on.


I don't mean to stereotype,but lets look at the evidence on this forum,not one single atheist believes in psychic powers or ghosts or astral projection,why? because there is no evidence for them,there have been tests done by many people and the tests always come up negative,conclusion,they aren't real.

The only people on this forum that have suggested that there are people with psychic abilities.that they do believe in ghosts,that astral projection is possible,are the theists,despite all the evidence to the contrary,so with no evidence and no biblical threat for you to believe such things,why do you still believe?
Bluedoll
What is a higher Neither? Applause

Bikerman are you looking at the statistics correctly? You said it took 2 minutes to find the results. I say it took you much longer than that. What about all the time devoted to previous research, thinking and discussion that has gone into these subjects over religion? It only took you 2 minutes because you compiled the information previously but make sure you count in all the previous work in order to compile the information and have it at hand. Give yourself credit for your expertise

Who cares about these funky statistics, anyway, because they are not applicable. I suspect that in the gathering of the information needed to make that table, a lot of people did want to make a 'no comment' (neither) because the question is not applicable to science. People can do their work critically and religion is neither part in it.

However this fact is not relevant as far as truespeed is concerned for he suggests a person may believe in a higher power but is not allowed to believe in the bible. He thinks if people believe in the bible they lack critical thinking.

How is it that the two things, belief and critical thinking are exclusive? Are not 99.9999% of the topics not religiously related? So how are the two things even applicable? If the topics under discussion are scientific and actually where religiously related then the possibility is that Scientific Neither could possibly be a cult religion. Neitherism. – sarcasm. I think it is very possible to belief in the bible and retain critical thinking in fact it might even enhance critical thinking for it is the way the bible is understood not what is understood that is pertinent and makes the two things compatible.

Not only does truespeed suggest the two things are related and in opposition to each other but an appeal is made to another member of why do you believe. Why ask this question? This is not unusual. Everyone wants to be understood and it just feels good if someone agrees with the another. Besides, it is a religious characteristic of evangelism. ism, ism, ism. or does it have something to do with the ghost of atheism’s past?
Bikerman
Bluedoll wrote:
What is a higher Neither? Applause

Bikerman are you looking at the statistics correctly? You said it took 2 minutes to find the results. I say it took you much longer than that. What about all the time devoted to previous research, thinking and discussion that has gone into these subjects over religion? It only took you 2 minutes because you compiled the information previously but make sure you count in all the previous work in order to compile the information and have it at hand. Give yourself credit for your expertise
Actually no. I was not on my own PC with my bookmarks and library, so I simply did a quick google which took - 2 minutes.
Quote:
Who cares about these funky statistics, anyway, because they are not applicable. I suspect that in the gathering of the information needed to make that table, a lot of people did want to make a 'no comment' (neither) because the question is not applicable to science. People can do their work critically and religion is neither part in it.
The cited reference gives all the necessary stats, so you don't have to guess how many didn't answer.
Quote:
However this fact is not relevant as far as truespeed is concerned for he suggests a person may believe in a higher power but is not allowed to believe in the bible. He thinks if people believe in the bible they lack critical thinking.
I presume you just made that up - I have certainly seen no such comments from him.
Me on the other hand - certainly. If you believe in the literal Genesis account then you are not rational. I'm happy to say that because it is so obviously true. Anyone who is capable of ignoring the huge amount of scientific evidence - for evolution, for the age of the earth, against any global flood - and is also incapable of basic logic (the genesis account is actually impossible in many regards, not because of science, but because it is self-contradictory), is clearly basing their decisions on something other than logic and reason.
Quote:
How is it that the two things, belief and critical thinking are exclusive?
Tut tut....quote the words used, don't just insert your own and accuse others of saying what YOU write.
The quote was Dean's, not mine - it was he that said it, not me. Specifically he said
Quote:
..critical thinking and being religious are mutually exclusive.

Quote:
Not only does truespeed suggest the two things are related and in opposition to each other but an appeal is made to another member of why do you believe. Why ask this question? This is not unusual. Everyone wants to be understood and it just feels good if someone agrees with the another. Besides, it is a religious characteristic of evangelism. ism, ism, ism. or does it have something to do with the ghost of atheism’s past?
I don't understand the question.
deanhills
Thumbs down Bikerman. I think they call that cherry picking. If you read it properly (which would have taken you more than a minute) you would have found that the study surprised itself that religion is much more prevalent among scientists than had been previously thought, and that being a scientist and being religious is not mutually exclusive.

My main argument is that religion has nothing to do with how good a scientist is at his job. Truespeed claimed that those who are religious have had their critical thinking erased. I rebutted that. Try and digress as much as you like but your point of view is wrong. Religion has as little to do with how good a scientist you are than atheism has. And claiming science for atheism is just complete blinkered thinking.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Thumbs down Bikerman. I think they call that cherry picking. If you read it properly (which would have taken you more than a minute) you would have found that the study surprised itself that religion is much more prevalent among scientists than had been previously thought, and that being a scientist and being religious is not mutually exclusive.
Typical straw-man nonsense. Nobody ever claimed that science and religion WERE mutually exclusive apart from you.
The simple fact is that you picked a crappy poll - a self selecting sample of 200 people, on-line with no proper randomisation or sampling technique. It is the sort of poll that a (bad) IT student in my class might design before learning better, and is pretty worthless.
Quote:
My main argument is that religion has nothing to do with how good a scientist is at his job. Truespeed claimed that those who are religious have had their critical thinking erased. I rebutted that. Try and digress as much as you like but your point of view is wrong. Religion has as little to do with how good a scientist you are than atheism has. And claiming science for atheism is just complete blinkered thinking.
LOL...Me wrong? This from someone who says one minute that the religious are not capable of critical thought, and the next minute that they are.

It is clear that Truespeed was talking about religious fundamantalists - he clarified it so that even you should have been able to comprehend it - and he is absolutely right. If you believe unscientific crap then you are a not using critical thinking. Simple.
Bluedoll
Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
Actually no. I was not on my own PC with my bookmarks and library, so I simply did a quick google which took - 2 minutes.
That might be so but you spend so much time in religious subjects that no one can say you are a novice at it, nor spend a mere causal amount of time with religion. Only two minutes into these subjects, give yourself due credit.

After all you do need time to think rationally about these kinds of subjects.

Quote:
The cited reference gives all the necessary stats, so you don't have to guess how many didn't answer.
This is not what I meant. They did answer but the answer I am suspecting has little to do with religion or the higher power, since an answer of neither, is also a “does not apply answer.”

Quote:
I presume you just made that up - I have certainly seen no such comments from him.
Well I do read the following.

truespeed wrote:
Quote:
Perhaps my comment should of been that the religious folk who believe in creation theory/the flood/the devil etc are more likely to also believe in ghosts/psychics/mediums/astral projection because they lack critical thinking and the reason they lack critical thinking is because they have turned it off due to religion. - truespeed
DID I MAKE THIS UP? Mr truespeed is referring to a ‘religious folk’.


The following respondence could be a darn good template for a letter to the local edumacation departmental.

...........I am assuming here that religious folk does not apply to any particular breed of religious category just plain ole folks who open the bible and read it. So now are these common people that do lack critical thinkin’ designated drivers of the science departments? Well gee willy kers maybe we just better call up all them thar colleges and universaties and tell them now, "don’t yah all allow these people in there as they can’t think like they should be thinkin. After all they do read their black book!" –signed your local atheist minister
- sarcasim Rolling Eyes
Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
Me on the other hand - certainly. If you believe in the literal Genesis account then you are not rational. I'm happy to say that because it is so obviously true.
    The reader should be aware the religious beliefs being expressed of a literal Genesis account is that of Bikerman's.

Quote:
Anyone who is capable of ignoring the huge amount of scientific evidence - for evolution, for the age of the earth, against any global flood - and is also incapable of basic logic (the genesis account is actually impossible in many regards, not because of science, but because it is self-contradictory), is clearly basing their decisions on something other than logic and reason.
I might agree with you on any cited reference of those that actually do believe in, what you are suggesting. You certainly seem to believe these things as you play the religious fanatic role, describing everything those people believe in and then some!
_____

What you do leave out is the acceptance of the bible in a reasonable way and the compatibility of religion with science and the decision to separate the two. You choose instead by your analysis to combine religion with science and offer plenty of conflicts to support your claim that anyone with religious beliefs other than your own must be lacking in logic and reason. You wrong? It is neither a case of being right or wrong but an unnecessary choice that you have made to keep religion involved with science which is actually a rather sad thing to do to science.



Religious belief and critical thinking do not have to be related. One can have religious beliefs and still use critical thinking if they wish to study science or even a career path that asks for critical thinking. Just because someone believes in God as a spiritual being (or holy ghost) does not mean they are not capable of critical thinking is what I am saying.
Bikerman
See, you are doing it again. Trying to play silly games with my postings is not a good idea because you make your problems with English apparent.
For example:
Quote:
Quote:
Me on the other hand - certainly. If you believe in the literal Genesis account then you are not rational. I'm happy to say that because it is so obviously true.
The reader should be aware the religious beliefs being expressed of a literal Genesis account is that of Bikerman's.
Only if you don't understand basic grammar. My sentences were reasonably grammatical and unambiguous. To assume that the 'true' could apply to the subject of the preceding sentence, rather than the preceding sub-clause, is to show ignorance of basic sentence structure, and to mangle English in a manner which, even for you, is quite excessive.

Likewise, when you attribute words to Truespeed, you reveal your dishonesty. You deliberately used a selective quote (you extract the words 'religious folk' from a qualified sub-clause in which a clear & explicit qualification of the words is given (ie those who believe....etc). This is an entirely dishonest tactic, much beloved of religious zealots and people of limited intelligence (ie stupid enough to think that others won't immediately spot the dishonesty).

You next compound the dishonesty with an attempted straw-man misrepresentation :
Quote:
I am assuming here that religious folk does not apply to any particular breed of religious category just plain ole folks who open the bible and read it.
Completely untrue, as you yourself know, having quoted out of context already. Clearly it DOES apply to a particular 'set' of Christians - those who believe in creationism, the flood etc. A minority of Christians to be sure, but significant in the US.

Next we have a wonderful piece of PB (poupée bleu) nonsense:
Quote:
So now are these common people that do lack critical thinkin’ designated drivers of the science departments?
Misapplied metaphor and bad punctuation make this pretty hard to follow. You cannot be the designated driver of a science department - they don't tend to have steering wheels, and rarely get above walking pace. It would also be difficult to get an HGV license to cover the job, since most only go to 44 tonnes, and a typical science department is probably well into the mega-tonnes. I suppose you could try to drive bits of the department after an arduous 'demolish and stack' operation - but I don't think there is a grant available for such....

It has been explained that scientists may have deist or pantheist beliefs - certainly many do.
I know you won't understand those terms, so you can look them up at the links provided below (I amaze myself sometimes with my generosity).
Desism
Pantheism
Note that neither Deist nor Pantheist is likely to be picking many bibles up, since neither would want anything to do with the Gods of the bible - either Old OR New Testament.

Next you mix dishonesty and stupidity in a tour de force:
Quote:
What you do leave out is the acceptance of the bible in a reasonable way and the compatibility of religion with science and the decision to separate the two.
No, I don't. I explicitly qualified the subject of my views in a manner which excludes the above.

One also wonders why, if they are compatible, it was decided (by whom?) to separate them. In fact I seem to remember you and other theists whining that they are completely distinct (therefore not compatible) ways of looking at the world. It is ME who is maintaining that they ARE capable of being mixed (or, more specifically, that one can use science to examine many religious claims and beliefs. Religion, of course, isn't a 'method' like science, so it wouldn't make much sense to talk of using religion to study science).

Actually I'm pretty sure you have previously said that you believe Genesis, and other passages of the OT, are true. You don't, therefore, qualify as someone with a 'reasonable acceptance', and instead belong in the 'mad/bad/ignorant' camp (unless I have misread or misunderstood, in which case, of course, I apologise for the mistake).

Then it is back to the standard dishonesty with
Quote:
your claim that anyone with religious beliefs other than your own must be lacking in logic and reason.
Which is invented and not something I have ever said.

I did say that I had never found an honest creationism apologist. This remains true.
Bluedoll
Quote:
post some answers and why you think what you think, examples would be awesome. - Gundamxxg
A ghost? I use the bible to understand spiritual things. God is a spirit (some people use the term holy ghost). I do understand that the physical world and the spiritual world are two different things. God and spiritual beings (angels) are real but can not be proven to be real by using scientific means. On both sides you will find falseness. There will always be people that for example, will provide physical evidence for the purpose of gaining money or attention regarding these subjects. These claims can be disputed using scientific means. The other side (not the science community but the atheist community) will claim that spiritual beings do not exist by using science but this too is an illusion since it is impossible for science to prove non existence. It can only refute false representation. Science is actually not concerned with the existence of God but religions are. To state that God does exist is not a claim as some might state but is a religious belief. It stands to reason to state that God does not exist is also a religious belief.
loremar
I'm curious when did this idea of ghost originate from? and where? Does everyone in different cultures have myths or stories about ghosts? Or this ghost just came from western culture? Can anyone tell me?
Bikerman
loremar wrote:
Let me just summarize that one:
Bikerman: You're poor in english and you're a big fat LIAR.
Are you seriously telling me that you read no other content in my posting?
The whole think WAS a sidetrack which I permitted until I was sure, and have now dealt with, so the conversation should get back on track.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Thumbs down Bikerman. I think they call that cherry picking. If you read it properly (which would have taken you more than a minute) you would have found that the study surprised itself that religion is much more prevalent among scientists than had been previously thought, and that being a scientist and being religious is not mutually exclusive.
Typical straw-man nonsense. Nobody ever claimed that science and religion WERE mutually exclusive apart from you.
How many times have we heard in this forum that atheists seem to be the only ones who are able to use science as a tool to get to the truth. Theists are unable to do so because their belief in God is faith based. So that means inclusive. So that is not straw-man nonsense. Either Christians are just as likely to use science as a tool when they pursue the truth, or they are not. Make up your mind.

And please don't shoot the literature that I quoted. If you had taken longer than your one minute, you may have noticed how scientific it was. I find your tactic of making the person you are debating with look like a moron disgusting. You know full well that not many would actually take the trouble of reading that paper. And if you only spent one minute on it, you are hardly qualified to critique it.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Thumbs down Bikerman. I think they call that cherry picking. If you read it properly (which would have taken you more than a minute) you would have found that the study surprised itself that religion is much more prevalent among scientists than had been previously thought, and that being a scientist and being religious is not mutually exclusive.
Typical straw-man nonsense. Nobody ever claimed that science and religion WERE mutually exclusive apart from you.
How many times have we heard in this forum that atheists seem to be the only ones who are able to use science as a tool to get to the truth.
Well, that should be easy to answer - you have a search facility. So ANSWER IT. SHOW ME the atheists claiming that only atheists use science to get at the truth. Stop making unsubstantiated claims and start supporting them. I find it an astonishing claim and I'd be surprised if any atheist said it. I know several religious scientists personally, so I wouldn't have said it.
Quote:
Theists are unable to do so because their belief in God is faith based. So that means inclusive.
Yet more nonsense. Faith based does NOT mean inclusive. The two concepts are entirely distinct.
Quote:
So that is not straw-man nonsense.
So you don't know what a straw man argument is either? The statement that 'being a scientist and being religious is not mutually exclusive' - that is your straw man argument. You got even that muddled up and first claimed it was exclusive, now claim it isn't. There is only one person who 'needs to make his mind up' here...and it isn't me.

It is a straw man because the only person who ever claimed they WERE exclusive is YOU. So you make a statement and then claim the statement is wrong, as if this says something about atheists, when in fact it only tells us about you.
Quote:
And please don't shoot the literature that I quoted. If you had taken longer than your one minute, you may have noticed how scientific it was.
Inventing again? What makes you think I only took a minute over it? Did I say so? Nope <edit>removed assertion that BlueDoll was the origin of this myth since it is not the case</edit>
Quote:
I find your tactic of making the person you are debating with look like a moron disgusting.
You do that all by yourself without my help.
Personally I find your dishonesty disgusting, but I'll live with it.
Quote:
You know full well that not many would actually take the trouble of reading that paper. And if you only spent one minute on it, you are hardly qualified to critique it.
If I had only spent one minute on it you might have a point. But, as usual, you don't. The paper is a very small self-selecting sample, as I said. It is therefore statistically fairly unimportant and unreliable - that is why other, larger and better conducted surveys, show something different.
If you want to argue with that conclusion then go and learn some statistics first. You might then have something relevant and of value to say about it.
Bluedoll
Quote:
Inventing again? What makes you think I only took a minute over it? Did I say so? Nope, that would be your mate Bluedoll who said so. Here's a little tip for you - just because Bluedoll says something,it doesn't mean it is correct.
I have made several posts in this thread and each one of them said the opposite. I stated, that although you might take a couple of minutes to do a search on the internet, that you have spent much more time than a few minutes this message board posting, etc. not the other way around. How did you get that I stated only a minute out of my post? Want to put it in quotes so we can all read it?

Quote:
It is ME who is maintaining that they ARE capable of being mixed (or, more specifically, that one can use science to examine many religious claims and beliefs.- Bikerman
I am saying this is not science at work for science has little interest in religion. Yes, it is you mixing the two. I think readers should be made aware of this fact too. I am not saying you can not do it but I am saying that the doing of it is a religious examination and certainly not a scientific one.

Quote:
This is an entirely dishonest tactic, much beloved of religious zealots and people of limited intelligence (ie stupid enough to think that others won't immediately spot the dishonesty). - Bikerman
Bikerman
Bluedoll wrote:
Quote:
Inventing again? What makes you think I only took a minute over it? Did I say so? Nope, that would be your mate Bluedoll who said so. Here's a little tip for you - just because Bluedoll says something,it doesn't mean it is correct.
I have made several posts in this thread and each one of them said the opposite. I stated, that although you might take a couple of minutes to do a search on the internet, that you have spent much more time than a few minutes this message board posting, etc. not the other way around. How did you get that I stated only a minute out of my post? Want to put it in quotes so we can all read it?
Reading back I can't actually see where he might have got the impression from, but it wasn't in your posts, so that was my mistake which I am happy to acknowledge.
Quote:
I am saying this is not science at work for science has little interest in religion. Yes, it is you mixing the two. I think readers should be made aware of this fact too. I am not saying you can not do it but I am saying that the doing of it is a religious examination and certainly not a scientific one.

a) I am 'mixing' nothing. Science IS examining religion from many angles. The 'spiritual experience' is being examined using PET scanners, MRI imaging and other techniques. The historical origins and claims of religions are being examined constantly by palaeontologists, archeologists and language experts. The mimetic nature of religious ideas is the subject of very active study amongst the new 'meme community'. The philosophical nature and basis of religion is being examined by philosophers such as Dan Dennett.....etc etc.
b) Your obsession with trying to show that I am religious is showing again. One wonders why it is so important to you to believe I am religious, but not for long, because it isn't worth too much thought.
Bluedoll
Bikerman wrote:

b) Your obsession with trying to show that I am religious is showing again. One wonders why it is so important to you to believe I am religious, but not for long, because it isn't worth too much thought.
Not about you. My belief is based on what I observe about atheism in general.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
If you want to argue with that conclusion then go and learn some statistics first. You might then have something relevant and of value to say about it.

Bikerman, will you please stop making comments like the above, again treating me like a moron. There is absolutely no need for that. Although hopefully people can see through your tactic. For you it is all about presentation in making those who you differ with look like real idiots. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the paper, it was 100% sound. If it had been anything less than that, it would never have seen the light of the day and I would never have submitted it to this Forum.

There are plenty of people participating in this forum who sincerely believe that if one is religious that you can't think with the mind of someone who uses science as a tool to get to the truth. You often hear people saying that those of religion believe in a fairy in the sky, whereas those who are atheist use science to verify the truth, as though those who are religious don't do that. I don't have to go anywhere to search anything. Google this Forum and when you do, you can start with this thread - Science versus religion that is 17 pages long. If the majority here believe as you do that those of religion do use science to come to their conclusions, how does this topic make any sense?
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
If you want to argue with that conclusion then go and learn some statistics first. You might then have something relevant and of value to say about it.

Bikerman, will you please stop making comments like the above, again treating me like a moron. There is absolutely no need for that. Although hopefully people can see through your tactic. For you it is all about presentation in making those who you differ with look like real idiots. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the paper, it was 100% sound. If it had been anything less than that, it would never have seen the light of the day and I would never have submitted it to this Forum.
Oh so you think you are qualified to make that judgement do you? Tell me, what is an acceptable sample size for a target population of, say 100,000, to give a 90% confidence interval? What sampling techniques would be appropriate for such a survey? What considerations have I not mentioned that would influence the sample selection and the confidence interval?
Finally, given that the target population in this case is 'scientists' (or at least that is what you are claiming), and further given that the number of scientists in the US is about 2.7 million*, then what confidence interval does a sample size of 200 give, and is a self-selecting sample an appropriate sampling technique for such a survey?
These are VERY basic questions for anyone who thinks they are qualified to say that a survey is '100% sound'.

I didn't say you were an idiot, but I do believe you haven't got a clue about statistics, and that any claim you make about a survey being '100% sound' is based on nothing more than whether it fits your preconceptions.

PS -
Quote:
If the majority here believe as you do that those of religion do use science to come to their conclusions, how does this topic make any sense?
Well, since I never said that, or hinted at it, and I don't believe it to be true, then I don't understand the question. Why do you insist on claiming that I say or believe things that I do not believe and would never say? Two possibilities - either you ARE being idiotic, or you are being dishonest.
For the record - what I have been trying to say is that religious beliefs are, in most cases, subject to examination by science. I did NOT say that religious people arrive at their beliefs using science and I don't believe for a minute that they do.

Finally, the thread you pointed to consists of a number of creationists trying to reconcile their beliefs with science and being comprehensively refuted. That is nothing new.

* DPE [Dept. of Professional Employees, AFL-CIO]: Programs & Publications: DPE Analyses: Scientists, Engineers and Technical Workers
http://www.dpeaflcio.org/programs/analyses/2002_sci_eng.htm
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
Oh so you think you are qualified to make that judgement do you? Tell me, what is an acceptable sample size for a target population of, say 100,000, to give a 90% confidence interval? What sampling techniques would be appropriate for such a survey? What considerations have I not mentioned that would influence the sample selection and the confidence interval?
Bikerman, you know full well that no one would be able to come up with an acceptable confidence interval for the total number of scientists in the United States, unless they have millions of dollars budget at their disposal. If you check the paper you will notice that the guy who did the research went to great lengths to ensure that his population is as representative as could be within the budget constraints.

I invite anyone to check Chapter 3 (Research Methods) of the paper below and then to agree with Bikerman that his Secondary School pupils could have done a better job of it.

Comparison of Religiosity Levels between Scientists and Non-Scientists, PhD Thesis - Walden University 2010
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Oh so you think you are qualified to make that judgement do you? Tell me, what is an acceptable sample size for a target population of, say 100,000, to give a 90% confidence interval? What sampling techniques would be appropriate for such a survey? What considerations have I not mentioned that would influence the sample selection and the confidence interval?
Bikerman, you know full well that no one would be able to come up with an acceptable confidence interval for the total number of scientists in the United States, unless they have millions of dollars budget at their disposal.
If you check the paper you will notice that the guy who did the research went to great lengths to ensure that his population is as representative as could be within the budget constraints.
What a load of twaddle. I asked you some perfectly simple questions and you haven't got a clue, so you invent some nonsense about budgets of millions of dollars...
You don't know what the basic terms mean so how can you claim to understand a discussion on statistical significance?
Simple answer is you don't. You just see lots of impressive sounding words and assume it means the survey is what you want it to be.
My (college) students might not have a PhD but they can calculate a simple confidence interval for a survey.
FYI the confidence interval for a survey of 124 scientists (assuming he had a perfectly random sample, which he obviously didn't) on that target population (further assuming a 50-50 outcome to avoid introducing a-priori bias), would be about 9 (8.8 to be more precise).

Now, I've done the maths for you. So tell me, what does that confidence interval - 8.8 (with a confidence level of 95%) actually mean?

PS - far from costing millions, the cost of getting a more significant sample would have been peanuts.
And YES - I COULD do a better survey with my students, quite easily. Note that I'm saying that without even reading your paper (your link is dead)*. I can say it with absolute confidence because ANYONE could have done a better survey. Increase the sample size to just 1,000 and you cut that confidence interval by 2/3rds - down to 3. That would be a MUCH better survey and the cost would be tiny. Any student of IT who couldn't design a better survey than this would be a crap student.

*PS - it must have been my link, it is now working and I'm just giggling my way through the paper. Talk about 'lies and damn statistics'. He starts with a woefully inadequate sample and chucks every statistical trick in the book at it. The only important part of the whole paper is chapter 5:
Quote:
Infosurv, Inc. the online survey company used to gather the statistical data is based in
Atlanta, Georgia and has people who work in all industries to draw random samples. This
company has a pool of over 500 persons that qualify to participate in each group of this study.
Individuals were contacted via e-mail and, including expected non-responses, the randomly
selected samples of each group were expected to be 100 scientists and 100 non-scientists. The
targeted groups were chosen to determine if there was a significant difference between the two
groups through assessing the level of religious belief. The use of such relatively large samples is
intended to improve both the validity and reliability. The sample size also allowed use of
appropriate statistical procedures to test the hypotheses that were formulated for the research.
Due to nature of the pool of applicants maintained by the online survey company, response rates
were 100%.
In other words, this company has a total of 1000 people on record, for whom they have the necessary data already recorded - and THAT is the pool from which they then sample. They aimed for two sample groups of 100 and actually got one of 126 and one of 74 (why?). This is total pants. The people on record are, by definition, a self-selecting sample.
spinout
My dilemma:

1. I can see ghosts
2. I want to kill

Then you are in a shithouse! even if you "kill" something it wont DIE!
SeriousBug
I don't believe in ghosts, and according to Islam a person that is dead can't return to life, or walk in our world. However, there are "jinn", who are also created by God. While we can't see these "jinn", calling them to our world is forbidden in Qu'ran. This makes me think that jinn can really come to our world and do things, hence Qu'ran forbids us.

According the Qu'ran, jinns also have free will. However, since our willpower is higher, we can control them. This might mean jinns can come into our world and wander around.

So, according to this, the "ghosts" might be actually jinns.
Bikerman
SeriousBug wrote:
According the Qu'ran, jinns also have free will. However, since our willpower is higher, we can control them. This might mean jinns can come into our world and wander around.
So, according to this, the "ghosts" might be actually jinns.

According to The Magic Roundabout, by Serge Danot, Dougal is a talking dog with depressive illness and delusions of grandeur. According to JK Rowling, Harry Potter is a great wizard.
Personally I don't tend to believe things just because they are mentioned in a book.
The reason that the Quran mentions the Jinn is simple - Jinn were figures in Arabian mythology (pre-Islam). When the Quran came to be written down, eventually, they couldn't just copy the Bible, the new religion had to be distinctively Arabic, so you see many references to Arabian mythology in the Quran, rather than Hebrew mythology in the Hebrew bible - from which most of the Quran is lifted.
This also explains why Yaweh becomes 'Allah'. The figure of Allah predates Islam - Allah was the creator/rain God in Arabian mythology (which was polytheistic).
Klaw 2
I don't believe in ghosts or anything supernatural it's never been proven or caught on tape... the scary people get sometimes is not a ghost but something else. For example soundwaves at a certain frequency can give you the feeling as if you are being watched/not alone in a room.
Most people are a bit scared in the dark because we are scared of the unknown.

bikerman & deanhills
I have a bit of experience with statistics, though it is with the T-test, mainly used when the t-distribution can be aplied, we had to do some practicum where we had to do different test a number of times and using the t-test was needed for the conclusion the more test you did the better the outcome of the t-test became better.

Basic thing we learned, the bigger the sampling the better now if you sample just 200 people that's way too low.
there are about 22 milion scientists and engineers in the US alone. And they also cheeted since as bikerman said they just used 200 out of 1000 why? The bigger the sample the better, but somehow they cut 80% out. If 80% of the people answered screwed up filling in some form the whole survey should be ditched.

And about the costs of a survey, I can do one right now. getting a hold of email adresses of scientists isn't really hard a lot of them are happy to help you if you ask them something short about their subject, (of course they have to be specific questions and the answer shoudn't be easy to get) so asking how evolution works will at best get you a link to wikipedia.
If you say that you are doing a college project about "evolution and creationism and the effect on society" (or something like that) and as a part of it you want to do a survey of your own, I think they will be more than happy to answer. Not all of them will answer but if you email enough people you will get enough replies...
it's just a matter of finding emails, it will take up a weekend or two but it will hardly cost a million
deanhills
Klaw 2 wrote:
And about the costs of a survey, I can do one right now. getting a hold of email adresses of scientists isn't really hard a lot of them are happy to help you if you ask them something short about their subject, (of course they have to be specific questions and the answer shoudn't be easy to get) so asking how evolution works will at best get you a link to wikipedia.
If you say that you are doing a college project about "evolution and creationism and the effect on society" (or something like that) and as a part of it you want to do a survey of your own, I think they will be more than happy to answer. Not all of them will answer but if you email enough people you will get enough replies...
it's just a matter of finding emails, it will take up a weekend or two but it will hardly cost a million
So obviously the guy should fail his PhD? His research had little value? Did you actually read his paper and checked out his research methodology? As it was not just a matter of going out and picking 200 people at random, those 200 people were carefully chosen by a company that specializes in research subjects after very careful analysis. They weren't taken out of a random hat. You're saying going for as many as you can randomly. And that is going to come up with random results. It is also known the more hits you get that way, the more inflated the room for error will be.
Bikerman
Dean, you honestly don't know what you are talking about so it would be better to stop talking.
Random sampling is the ideal. Everything else is a compromise. Much statistical analysis is predicated on the fact that the sample group is randomly selected. To use any other method is to introduce potential bias in the sample which cannot be quantified and therefore cannot be eliminated.
Klaw 2
deanhills wrote:
So obviously the guy should fail his PhD? His research had little value? Did you actually read his paper and checked out his research methodology? As it was not just a matter of going out and picking 200 people at random, those 200 people were carefully chosen by a company that specializes in research subjects after very careful analysis. They weren't taken out of a random hat. You're saying going for as many as you can randomly. And that is going to come up with random results. It is also known the more hits you get that way, the more inflated the room for error will be.


You can't really "preselect" 200 hundred people on what basis are you preselecting?
And you should have a sample size asbig as possible, if you ask every single scientist your research is as accurate as you can be. If you ask one it is totally unaccurate, yes?
And the more people you ask the LESS random it becomes, the chance of any deviation becomes smaller.

An analogy, Elections, if you randomly select people from al over the country, you are going to get better outcome than when you only ask
people from a provinve wich is mostly right wing or left wing...
only shop owners
only rich people
only poor people
only students on universities etc.etc.etc.

your poll has to cover all of these proportional to the population, the best way is to randomly select people say every 500th inhabitant of a town (alfabeticallly)
shivaghimire
I haven't seen ghosts till now but I believe in ghosts. In our country there are so many houses where people has faced ghosts. People tried to sleep in those houses and they used to remain outside in the morning but they don't know who brings them out. There are proof of people who fight with ghosts. Generally known as 'KHYAK' is common in 'Newar' community in Nepal who are lady ghost and tell that they are soft as silk ball and those ghosts attack people who is out of Newar community in their house. They become ghosts as they are buried in their own house. It is done so as a culture. In their culture, a girl remains in a dark room for 12 days before their mensuration period starts. If they died when they are in dark room they are buried to the land in their home and people believe they remain as a ghost and called 'KHYAK' in local language.
Navigator
Ghosts have to do with magnetism and the particular location where they appear, like "recorded events".
Bikerman
On the other hand, ghosts have nothing to do with magnetism 'like recorded events' because there is no such thing...
Navigator
Bikerman wrote:
On the other hand, ghosts have nothing to do with magnetism 'like recorded events' because there is no such thing...


There is an interesting book called The Power of the Pendulum by a man by the name of T. C. Lethbridge who did some pretty amazing research with a pendulum, check it out.
Bikerman
Totally not interested. Lethbridge is known to me and I haven't got enough spare time to waste it reading his ramblings.
spinout
The pendulum.. Shocked
I instantly remenbers an episode of Tin Tin!!! Remember which?
Related topics
Free DHTML scripts for begginers
Looking for MS Outlook Alternatives
REAL music
Should .hack have an real online version?
Central bank warns on real estate, -- hot money in China!
Nokia camera fone at Rs.3100 FOR REAL!!NO JOKE
A tribute to 9/11 Victims..
If WWII had been an online Real Time Strategy Game
David Blaine/Real Magic
Real Spy Monitor v2.38 the Latest!!
UFOs, ghosts and other paranormal stuff
UFOs, ghosts and other paranormal stuff
real ghosts
Ghost Video (Real or Fake?)
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.