Ghosts are Proof of God

Oh, thats right. The imaginary line between a persisting conscience energy of a deceased individual and a creator of all of time and space who condones the stoning of homosexuals.

 

ROFL!

Yes, Christian stone homosexual every day.

And you accuse others of delusion?

 

Its just a bit in your holy book that I choose not to ignore.

Something that you are unable to grasp.

 

Hmm..., is this what he said, or is it just another strawman to burn?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12295718

Perhaps not every day, but certainly more often than you care to admit.

Note: while it says there's no definitive connection between Mr. Kato's death and his being a homosexual, it does note several other salient facts: numerous death threats against him for his sexual orientation, the violence against other homosexuals in Uganda by Christians, and the fact that a local magazine happened to publish a list of prominent homosexuals in Uganda with the headline "Hang them."

 

Why no response to this, Yosh? http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/212346-ghosts-proof-god-2.html#post4588658

 

Its not what I suggested, however the act is condoned.

The act has since gone out of style and is ignored for the most part.

 

THIS IS ABSOLUTELY HIGH – LARIOUS!!!!!!

Why? What proof is there of ghosts? You have scientist that say that there exist (Professor Richard Wiseman)! You have tv shows that say so, you have pictures of ghosts on cameras, you have all kinds of stuff on the paranormal about different dimensions. But, these people don’t believe in it, because It’s a bunch of hearsay even though there is a huge community that follows the paranormal that includes science.

But, they refuse this, but believe in evolution which hasn’t got diddlie squat!! Well, except great cartoon pictures of evolution… No tv shows where live camera watching life being born and it being an evolutionary step of complexity. There is nothing except the delusion that equates to different dimensions and some biologist telling you it exists… At least the paranormal folks have “some” math…

I figured all you conspiracy theorist would be on board with all unproven crap as long as there was some sort of backing without hard evidence. I mean – why not?!?

 

lol

You don;t have proof of ghosts, and you failed to draw a line between ghosts and a theistic god.

 

He's proving ghosts exist by disappearing before our eyes! Whoooo!

 

You see.

God created everyting.

So if there's ghost, that proves God exist.

 

I see teh deny at any cost crowd is still active?

You see there is the theological construct called a soul that was introduced very early in this thread. Atheists abound and deny that the sould is real .... apparently on the sole (no pun intended) basis that a soul is a theological concept - ergi it MUST be wrong.

The idea being that life after death, that we are more than just a collection of atoms and that our life has purpose is born out in the belief that there is a soul. That our lives will, in some form continue on.

Ghosts strongly suggest this. Not only is the evidence of ghost increasing, but with bodies interred and all biological support mechanism broken .... this should not be. Additionally, the fact that many ghosts are associated with violent events - known violenet events - and the the appartitions bear resemblence to these acts offer strongly suggestive evidenece of linkage to these past events.

Conclusive proof? Nope, just more preponderanec of the evidence.

The fact that this was explained very early in the thread, and we have atheists wondering about the theological linkage .... rather than rebutting with anything other than it might be something else (also without proof mind you) indicates nothing more than atheists, professed skeptics, are unwilling to challenge their own pre-conceptions - not much more than that.

 

While I am certain that the enlightened community will enjoy your rant there are several things still unanswered:

Proof of ghosts (no one has provided any)
How ghosts are linked to the supposed existence of a theistic being (no argument has been presented).

There is not a vast conspiracy to dismiss anything that could pertain to an afterlife, it is the obvious: the dismissal of weak arguments.

 

I don't know about everyone else, but I dismiss it because it's completely and utterly unsubstantiated and makes no sense in a philosophical framework anyway. If a soul exists as it is normally understood, that indicates a dualistic universe. However, for the soul to affect the material universe, it must interact with the material universe and thus be measurable.

Not necessarily. Suddenly existence becomes Sisyphean if existence is unending, as sooner or later we're stuck with meaningless tasks or complete ennui at having done everything.

Evidence of ghosts isn't really increasing. As I stated earlier, most evidence really isn't.

Again: why are ghosts and evidence of them not so readily apparent in Mexico City or Petrograd, then?

Not really. No more proof than there was for phlogiston.

¿Que va?

 

God doesn't send ghosts. God might send angels. God used to send prophets. But ghosts or the ghostly phenomenon in my opinion are of satan.

 

That's a very clever opener because it's difficult to deny being part of a deny crowd. I'm not though.

This one doesn't (I see you're still of the opinion that all atheists think and say exactly the same things).

I don't think the concept of the soul has been defined consistently or clearly enough to come to an honest conclusion about it's existence. As it stands, I don't know but as yet see no reason to accept any of the varied claims for souls.

A specific explanation for the events and experiences attributed to ghosts would suggest some form of life after death. Other equally plausible explanations wouldn't require such a thing.

So you are with those of us challenging Yosh for his statement that "ghosts are known to exist"?

Sceptics don't have pre-conceptions - that's the point. This thread was started with pre-conceptions implying proof that has, to date, not been presented. I personally don't think such evidence exists but I'm constantly open to being proven wrong.

 

Speaking of blithering idiocy, it probably never occurred to you (in your childish and malicious haste) that ONE God can be looked at by TWO different people in entirely different ways.
Or do you think that Einstein and Craig have their own personal creators that reflect their ideals entirely? ..........
You may start back pedaling now.

No, Einstein wasn't so petty and threatened by the thoughts of others that he would deal in this childish contentious nonsense.

 

Why? Were YOU discussing a Hopi or Babylonian God for some reason?

Of course not! Don't be such an ass!

 

In what way? Care to be more specific? Or do you just want to
deny what you'd rather not understand?

The presence of ghosts have been accepted for argument's sake by others here. If you don't buy the premise of ghosts, what are you doing here splitting hairs for anyway?

 

Then what are you? You see why I would assign you to the deny crowd, no offense, you are saying what you are not - as opposed to wat you are.

Well, technically my opinion of atheists is that they will say anything and change their standards in order to try and make other people appear stupid.

Now, when talking in generalities there are way to differentiate, such as evengelical Christians, etc. and I generally call the new aggressive atheists modern atheists.

And quite frankly, I see many atheists make this case about being different, but rarely do I see atheists call other atheists to task for this abberret behavior. So, silence is a form of encouragement - and, in terms of ghosts, its OK to disagree with the herd of atheists on this one.

Just make sure you disagree with your peers as well as us.

I do not think the soul has been any clearer defined that a ghost. As yet, even with greater evidence of ghosts emerging, there is no 100% conclusive test for ghosts.

What it does suggest is, as I stated, that there is something to this life beyond the merely biological. Whether that be the Abrahamic concept of a soul, a Buddhist spirit that is reincarnated, or something else is debateable.

My concern is that atheists will, and indeed are, attempting to deny the Christian concept at any cost while fousting almost any alterantive as MORE valid. That is an ideological slant, and really stops honest exploration of the subject in its tracks.

Its not so much, once again, as what atheists believe it is, as what they desperately want it not to be - hence the deny at any cost mentality we are seeing.

See above. And these equally plausible explanations would be? Again, nothing wrong with honest exploration, but, "You are wrong no matter what," is not exploration.

I believe that I have stated my position pretty clearly. There is a growing body of documentation that is increasingly convincing referred ghosts. As we explore them as valid entities, what does this indicate.

To a Christian who believe in life after death, its a no brainer. Whether that is right or not? Well, it certainly indicates more than just biology to life does it not?

A sceptic has his own opinion, he just makes sure he challenges them. Teh idea that any human is free of bias (thus pre-conceptions) is, at best a misnomer. Again, the idea that atheists are free from bias on this one is, I think, self evident.

At some point, even a sceptic will stake out an opinion. Only the simply obstinate will not.

 

Then what are you? You see why I would assign you to the deny crowd, no offense, you are saying what you are not - as opposed to wat you are.

Well, technically my opinion of atheists is that they will say anything and change their standards in order to try and make other people appear stupid.

Now, when talking in generalities there are way to differentiate, such as evengelical Christians, etc. and I generally call the new aggressive atheists modern atheists.

And quite frankly, I see many atheists make this case about being different, but rarely do I see atheists call other atheists to task for this abberret behavior. So, silence is a form of encouragement - and, in terms of ghosts, its OK to disagree with the herd of atheists on this one.

Just make sure you disagree with your peers as well as us.

I do not think the soul has been any clearer defined that a ghost. As yet, even with greater evidence of ghosts emerging, there is no 100% conclusive test for ghosts.

What it does suggest is, as I stated, that there is something to this life beyond the merely biological. Whether that be the Abrahamic concept of a soul, a Buddhist spirit that is reincarnated, or something else is debateable.

My concern is that atheists will, and indeed are, attempting to deny the Christian concept at any cost while fousting almost any alterantive as MORE valid. That is an ideological slant, and really stops honest exploration of the subject in its tracks.

Its not so much, once again, as what atheists believe it is, as what they desperately want it not to be - hence the deny at any cost mentality we are seeing.

See above. And these equally plausible explanations would be? Again, nothing wrong with honest exploration, but, "You are wrong no matter what," is not exploration.

I believe that I have stated my position pretty clearly. There is a growing body of documentation that is increasingly convincing referred ghosts. As we explore them as valid entities, what does this indicate.

To a Christian who believe in life after death, its a no brainer. Whether that is right or not? Well, it certainly indicates more than just biology to life does it not?

A sceptic has his own opinion, he just makes sure he challenges them. Teh idea that any human is free of bias (thus pre-conceptions) is, at best a misnomer. Again, the idea that atheists are free from bias on this one is, I think, self evidently not the case.

At some point, even a sceptic will stake out an opinion. Only the simply obstinate will not.

 

Do you realize that you spend more time insulting others than you do addressing the arguments?

How do ghosts = a theistic god?

Just pointing out a false premise.

 

Reports of ghosts and spirits that inhabit a nether world have been made in every age and in every culture throughout the world. And although this wide and vast preponderance of first hand encounters with ghosts should be enough for most people, audio evidence of ghosts has been thoroughly tested and intrigues researchers.
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/viewnews.php?id=184435

People that just won't honestly assess the evidence, because it threatens the clear demarcations between life and death that atheists have always claimed, should just move on and stop derailing this thread.

 

No. I didn't "realize" that. How have I insulted you?

Wait! I've posted multiple times now my rationale (including using atheist's own arguments against them). If you think my point is not made you have to show me specifically where I'm off base. Just repeating over and over again, "where is the connection" doesn't get one anywhere.

If you understand the difference between a soul, however, and a body or brain, then you seem to be willfully denying the clear and unambiguous implications. Were I in your shoes, I might do the same.