Ghosts are Proof of God

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Yosh Shmenge, Oct 16, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Akhlut

    Akhlut Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    1,805
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    The same can be said of leperchauns, invisible pink unicorns, the FSM, and Sarah Palin actually being Hitler after sexual reassignment surgery and occult sacrifices to regain youth.

    But that's simply because of the salient features of the universe making positive evidence much easier than negative evidence.

    We have incontrovertible proof that essentially every important feature of a person's personality resides in the brain. Once the brain is damaged or destroyed (as in death), the basic personality of a person is destroyed. Therefore, it is unlikely, to say the least, that, should ghosts exist, that they are the continuations of a person's consciousness.

    What of records of Zeus, Thor, Sri Krishna, fox goblins, non-invisible white unicorns, gryphons, peaches of immortality, and a whole host of other such things, then?


    There is no reason to think that a soul needs a deity to exist.
     
  2. Neutral

    Neutral New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    14,003
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So there is indeed evidence, which you hve rejected for a completely subjective reason.



    Zues has already been disproven. I am sorry you can't figure out why he is assigned to the mythology section for everyone but atheists.


    And I believe it has been explained severa times that ghost strongly suggest a portion of life that is beyond the merely biological. Christians call this 'thing' a soul.

    I believe it has also been pointed out that you atheists seem to want to deny that thing being a soul, but almost anything else is acceptable. Its called deny at any cost.

    So when you come up with oe strawman position and double standard after another? Well, what is THAT all about?


    So, you are charging fraud with no evidence? That is a valid alternative to a mounting body of evidence of paranormal activity? Anything atheists don't like is nonsensical and fraudulent and can be dismissed?

    Like I said, the position atheists have taken on this one is simply not logical.


    Yep someone is wrong, so everyone is wrong. That is called a red herring. there is a pretty well spelled out claim that is being made, and one that you are not addressing at all.

    Therefore everyone does? In every case? And there is no need to address specific cases or events that were witnessed by several different groups of people?

    Deny at any cost, any generality will do?

    So everyone who disagrees with you is delusional. And teh simpler explanation that a wide raging and vast concpiracy is that there is something to our lives beyond the simple biological, as has been reported in ghost sighting for millenia.


    Who is doing what? Which side lacks evidence? Which side comes up with any standard to deny?


    I think you are losing control of your emotions. Clearly that was not what I wrote, but that your response was irrelevant.

    In order for analogies to be valid they MUST be supportable. Lets assume that you are familiar with logic?

    Ergo, you know that comparing apples and oranges is not a valid analogy, nor is any other comparison unless it is self evident.

    Unfortunately, the only analogy in these common atheistic comparisons is the opinion that both things being compared are false, with no supporting evidence.

    But thanks for the excuse like everyone who disagrees with you is too stupid to know what an analogy is.


    You are simply blowing your stack. Like I said, this is an emotional position for atheists.

    God does not tell us to pray in secret - and this is a religion discussion forum, so the idea that you are cape wearing super victim is ... what do you call them? That is right a non-sequitor.

    See what happens when we apply out standards, as a skeptic would, to our own positions?

    Just rememeber, all you have are vague generalities, speculation, guilt by association fallacies, vast conspiracies, and zero evidence to support your claims. Yet you want your treated as both simpler and more logical? Right.
     
  3. Neutral

    Neutral New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    14,003
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You have no idea what denominiation of Christianity I am slick, so please do not tell me who I think is and is not going to hell. Various denominiations have different opinions of that particular subject, but, of course, acknowledging them would mean you would have to give up on your favorite club to bash others with: hell.

    I have never claimed Einstein as 'my own' you, and indeed several atheists organizations, have claimed Einstein as their own. He was not an atheist, and he fits under the theist umbrella (he believed in God) and would accurately be classified as a deist, because he does not believe that God was personal.

    I have said that dozens of times, and you keep coming back with one silly claim after another in an increasing personal attack of affrontry? Why is the accurate classification of Einstein such a emotional event for you?
     
  4. Neutral

    Neutral New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    14,003
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Agh, we have no way of knowing or testing what lies beyond the event horizon, there are theories abound that include (with the multi-verse) the idea that matter sucked beyond the event horizon is torn through the veil if you will and is actually spewing out into other universes, to more physics based mathematical models that attempt to navigate the super compressed area of a black hole.

    It is NOT testable.

    Conversely, there are, by your own admission, ghost hunters bringing scientific methods to ghosts and are producing a wide variety of data to support ghists - which is odd considering that there is no method of testing ghosts according to you?

    So, you position is a strawman of what I said, twice, and its simply factually wrong - as usual.

    See above, see ak, and hen tell me that this is not true? You appear to be disagreeing for no other reason that the criticism is considered a negative. Well, the action is even more negative.

    You referred to folklore of animal 'ghosts' and you are above cliaming that it is not testable, and yet .... somehow there is evidence that is derived from these 'tests'?

    Do you see thr criticism above? How are you not applying fundamentally opposing positions with regard to evidence?

    Except there is growing bodies of evidence and testing methodology that disagree with you.

    You can safely address the scientific evidence.

    "These startling conclusions have been drawn by Dr Barrie Colvin, a scientist who has spent the past five years analysing the knocks, raps and bangs produced by poltergeists. Dr Colvin used some of the most advanced acoustic technology available to ‘fingerprint’ the ghostly sounds. He has discovered that they are fundamentally different to the normal sounds produced by people, animals, or indeed anything in our physical world. They are, for the want of a better term, ‘ghostly’.



    “The sounds produced by ‘ghosts’ during hauntings are paranormal,” says Dr Colvin. “Their acoustic waveforms are completely different. I can’t find a conventional explanation for my results at all. Nor can any of the other scientists who’ve reviewed my work. To be honest, we’re all completely stumped. We did not expect to find these results.”

    http://www.newsmonster.co.uk/parano...scientists-found-proof-that-ghosts-exist.html

    Now, how is THAT possible? Which YOU say is not.


    #1 - every atheist on this forum is denying the existence of Ghosts which is the basis of that logical claim.

    An dthe final result is the fact that the claim of a sould was made thousands of years ago, and, now we are seeing that better testing methods, etc. seem to be validating rather than contradicting the claims made thousands of years ago - that there is something to our lives beyond the purely biological.

    This has been explained many, many times. Please address it.

    [/QUOTE]

    There is no denial there, simply an invitation to ACTUALLY explore alternate theories. That is not happening is it?
     
  5. krunkskimo

    krunkskimo New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,219
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    0
    there's no more proof for Zues then the god of the Abrahamic religions.

    and instead of arguing about ghost all day can you show ghosts are Proof of God?
     
  6. Akhlut

    Akhlut Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    1,805
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    http://xkcd.com/882/

    There are billions upon billions of photos and recordings. Some are bound to have weird stuff that resembles what we conceive of as being a ghost. That does not mean that there actually are ghosts, anymore than green jelly beans cause acne, for instance. This is especially true given some locations should be absolutely filled with ghosts (namely, the whole of the earth, especially such locations as Mexico City or Ypres; yet, we do not see every photograph and recording done in those locations filled with images and sounds of the unquiet dead).


    The same can be said of YHWH and poltergeists.


    No they don't. There is not necessarily any connection between supposed ghostly activity and that being the result of dead humans. There are reports of ghosts in areas without there having been people dieing in horrific ways, and there are no reports of ghosts in some areas where death was absolutely awful.

    I actually think that ghosts and anything that might be termed a ghost preposterous. And, as I said above, I'd be quite overjoyed at the prospect of my death not being the end of my consciousness, but it seems highly unlikely.

    If ghosts exist (which they almost certainly don't), all they prove is the existence of ghosts. Without some decent statistical work done and a probable explanation of origin, no more can be done, especially if it is untestable.

    There's plenty of evidence of fraudulent ghost photos. They're splattered across the internet. Hell, there's even an app for the iPhone that allows you to create ghost photos at a whim. Not to mention dozens of YouTube videos with faked ghost footage (such as: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvKZPA8wFPc"]Scariest ghost caught on film - YouTube[/ame] , among many others).

    I see you simply hang on to a single point like a rabid dog, hoping to dismiss everything else by simply ignoring it. You also forgot to mention such things as camera malfunctions, misinterpretations of evidence, and human pattern finding false positives (such as seeing images in clouds or the grain of wood).

    Anything that has crap evidence can be dismissed, yes. Unfortunately, deities, a dualistic universe that somehow only has one way interaction, faeries, and demons all have a rather (*)(*)(*)(*)ing lack of evidence behind them.

    That word, I don't think it means what you think it means.


    Not everyone claims to see ghosts or interact with them, either. Furthermore, you are the one making the claim (ghosts exist), therefore, you're the one who needs to supply sufficient evidence that is testable and repeatable.


    Yes, actually. All humans engage in the modification of all of their memories. It's how human minds function. That's why eyewitness accounts without substantial evidence are, frankly, anecdotal bull(*)(*)(*)(*) that I tend not to believe, regardless of how much I'd like for it to be true. Hence, my extreme reservations on the continued survival of the thylacine, despite numerous eyewitness statements to the contrary in the past 50 years. Without physical proof of the continued survival of the animal, I discount eyewitness testimony that they persist.

    You mean like Satanic Ritual Abuse? Which, coincidentally, never actually occurred?

    How about accusations of witchcraft? Which are also never borne out?

    Ooh! How about Uri Gellar's spoonbending via telekinesis, which he cannot do when being tested, but can be perfectly reproduced by stage magicians in a perfectly nonmagical manner?

    Not to mention that people are influenced by other people and will have their own thoughts shaped by what others say. So, if someone says "ghost!" that makes others a lot more likely to start filtering new information as being related to ghosts than they would otherwise.

    Believe at any cost, any generality will do?


    Not a conspiracy, just billions of people ignorant of other phenomena. Just like Thor, just like river spirits, just like kitsune.


    I think you've long since lost control of your ability to cogently think.

    At anyrate, I was being facetious, as most of your opinions are fairly irrelevant as well.


    I've already gone through why ghost "evidence" is utter (*)(*)(*)(*), just like evidence supporting the existence of rich Nigerian princes wanting to use your bank account for wholly legitimate purposes.

    No, it was only aimed at you, no need to get offended for anyone else.


    No, it is quite evidentiary.

    So, you're ignorant of your own holy book; good to hear.

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+6&version=NIV

    "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him." - NIV

    " 5And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

    6But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

    7But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

    8Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him. " - KJV

    Yeah, that's certainly not telling to you pray in secret.

    No, I'm telling you cape wearing super victims to stop (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing and whining and moaning and groaning about having your religion attacked when you bring it up in public. Believe whatever you want, but once you make a public spectacle of it, be prepared to defend it. If you aren't up to task, listen to Yeshua's commandment about praying to your heavenly father.
     
  7. Akhlut

    Akhlut Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    1,805
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Even if ghosts were real, Yosh's argument is nonsense. A does not prove B, B does not prove C, and C does not prove D. Even if we accept premise A, it does not follow that B, C, and D are therefore true. They aren't actual "if p, then q" statements and are thus non sequitors.

    At best, if one makes the statement that "if ghosts are the souls of dead humans, then C," that would at least be an argument, but Yosh's statements are unconnected. It's like saying "if spaghetti sauce exists, so does the Flying Spaghetti Monster, ergo, pirates prevent global warming."
     
  8. Neutral

    Neutral New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    14,003
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    THat has absolutely nothing to do with any of the evidnece actually presented for ghosts. It is a generality and the equivalent of saying, "there are billions of super massive objects and many of them are clearly not black holes. Black holes are thus false."

    Try actually making a case for denial rather than just denying. You sound like a Creationist.

    Yes, no need to address the specifics calimed ... at all. :roll:

    Deny at any cost.

    Because you say so? And yes, many ghost are documented on places with known human activity that is often demonstrated in the behavior of the ghosts.

    But we should ignore this correlation because you wish to deny? Because you argue that exceptions remove generalities even as you use generalities to deny specifics?

    The lack of standards in judgement is telling.

    Thank you for the opinion. We already know it, and, quite frankly, I think this opinion is dishonest. You are clearly going out of your way to eny anything like the such.

    Not a single relevant fact in there in anything that has been claimed referrence ghosts - which are now untestable even as their is a growing body of evidence for them. :clap:

    Creationism.

    There are plenty of them that have been validated as well. Why not address them rather than continue to make the guilt by association fallacy?

    And which cases of validated ghosts can be eliminated based on those generalities?

    The only thing rabid I see is your denial at any cost.

    Yep the growing body of evdience doesn't need to be addressed at all - random generalities and atheistic faith are sufficent to dismiss the entire thing.

    Like Creationists dismissing the fossil record.


    Have I claimed to have seen a ghost? I have never seen a black hole either!

    I have repeatedy referred to the growing body of paranormal documentation that exists and listed scientifically documented poltergeist - which is not possible according to you.

    Thank you for another random standard of dismissal that is totally irrelevant to anything claimed.


    Therefore all documentation is part of a vast conspiracy? Many times eye witnesses are valid as well. Funny that they are valid or invalid based totally on whether they agree with you?

    But you aren't biased about this at all, and are in fact scientifically objective.

    There have been Satanic abuses in history. Have you ever heard of Baal worship? Guess who Baal is? Is there no church of Satan (and what would you call using a naked woman as a alter)? There are also Pagan witches out there.

    Again with the denial at any cost in the face of facts. Atheism creationism.

    Yep, one fraud means everything is a fraud? What does that have to do with anything that you HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN PRESENTED WITH?

    Clearly you have been influenced by atheist propoganda then.


    One side made an evidenced based case, the only introduced random, untested stanards with no direct applicability to deny. You tell me which side is more logical?

    Its not a conspiracy, just billions of ignorant people, because of the guilt by association fallacy. Gotcha.

    And I think, as atheists tend to do, you need to lash out rather than challenge your pre-concpetions.

    An appeal to authority, because you say so ...


    No, you have just introduced a lot of speculation about why and then studiously avoided applying it to any of the validated ghost documentations.

    And Yosh. Your inability to control you is noted, and, yes, it is YOUR fault when you don;t control you.

    No, its speculative, because I say so. I am an authority you see ... How is the reverse of your standard?


    Oh, this is the only section on prayer is it? And I seem to be missing the words, You are commanded by God ...


    Kind of hard to do in secret is it not?
     
  9. Neutral

    Neutral New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    14,003
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That is funny, Jesus prayed in groups and before he preformed his miracles, but somehow, when being told about hypocritica prayer, of praying just to be seen praying with no real intent to go to God, well, that is the ONLY way we should pray?

    And of course, this means that I clearly have no idea what my holy book says because another atheist lifts a single quote out of the text and thinks this makes him an expert on someone else's faith?

    Fallacies galore here. Not content to deny ghosts, you must content yourself with slandering someone else's faith.

    But you are totally objective and unemotional?

    It is defended, but, like many atheist internet bullies, you are blowing your stack when someone actually defends it. Your problem.

    Consider yourself rebutted.
     
  10. WongKimArk

    WongKimArk Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2011
    Messages:
    6,740
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ignoring that the plural of "anecdotes" is "not data," these are not mutually exclusive positions. The experience of a "ghost" does not have to be imaginary for the actual phenomenon to have have nothing to do with dead people. Poltergeists for example have with stunning consistency proven to be the action of ordinary mortals, usually pubescent adolescents. That doesn't mean that lamps weren't being knocked over and shoes weren't being thrown. It just means that dead people weren't doing the knocking over and throwing.

    There are a lot of prosaic phenomenon that can and are mistaken by people to be encounters with the dear departed. But like all other paranormal phenomenon with which I am familiar, they evaporate once controls are put in place to eliminate subjectivity from the observations.

    If ghosts existed, and if ghosts are observable by people then they can be detected and measured. Why after all these centuries of "documented and personal evidence" has this never happened?
     
  11. Neutral

    Neutral New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    14,003
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Because you say so?

    And because you connect it to known imaginary things? The known absurd?

    That is fundamentally illogical.

    Here is a little treatise that addresses the Creationist tactic you are using.

    http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf
     
  12. Wolverine

    Wolverine New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Messages:
    16,105
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You are yet to post a thing that can't be explained by a creaking building, or a drafty house.

    Proof.

    You fail to see the relevance of an invisible pink unicorn. The very premise and description of the invisible pink unicorn is unfalsifiable, and matches that of a theistic god. That is the point of the argument. The invisible pink unicorn is just as valid as any other imagined deity.

    Few doubt that Jesus was a historical figure (or at least a collage of different people), however his zombie status is the bit in questions.


    Um.... yes I did. I am not entirely opposed to the idea of ghosts. I already explained a different mode of their existence, persistent energy. This idea is separate from a theistic god, and more valid than your assertion because I am not drawing lines between unrelated ideas.


    Probably because you do not understand the basics of argument.
     
  13. Wolverine

    Wolverine New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Messages:
    16,105
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Deism in incompatible with theism.

    Educate yourself.
     
  14. Neutral

    Neutral New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    14,003
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Stop the silly personal attacks - which have been going on for weeks. now.

    Theism is JUST the belief in a God or Gods. Einstein fits that bill.

    From Einstein:

    When he turned 50, Einstein granted an interview in which he was asked point-blank, do you believe in God? “I am not an atheist,” he began. “The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.”

    http://www.bigquestionsonline.com/columns/michael-shermer/einstein’s-god

    And there is the deism part:

    “I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals or would sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we can comprehend about the knowable world. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.”

    http://www.bigquestionsonline.com/columns/michael-shermer/einstein’s-god

    So, yes, God to Einstein is a Creator, who simply does not interact personally with his creation.

    Educate yourself and stop the blind lashing out in multiple threads. Facts remain facts.
     
  15. Wolverine

    Wolverine New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Messages:
    16,105
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Right, its the pot calling the kettle black.

    Theism, the notion of a personal god is incomparable with deism, an impersonal god that essentially just kick started the universe.
     
  16. Neutral

    Neutral New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    14,003
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have been calling it deism for months.

    Theism is not JUST the notion of a personal God, it is the notion of a God as Creator, etc. And as you can see from Einstein's own words, he clearly believes in this.

    Which is why I have been calling him a deist for months.

    It is no one's fault but yours that you allow you personal animosity of other people's faith choice be the judge of other people and produce character faults like that on display above.

    Einsetin was a theist, a deist, and was not, in his own words, an atheist.

    Yet you you disagree with that rather petulently? Insist on dragging in your animosity, into mutiple threads?

    Nice faith atheists.
     
  17. Akhlut

    Akhlut Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    1,805
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Are you incapable of comprehending what you read? While I was using the FSM in a farcical fashion, it was a basic illustration of Yosh's argument: no point is connected to any other point.
     
  18. WongKimArk

    WongKimArk Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2011
    Messages:
    6,740
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Excuse me? Did Neutral write that?

    My irony meter just exploded.
     
    Akhlut and (deleted member) like this.
  19. Wolverine

    Wolverine New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Messages:
    16,105
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    0
    lol
    While I enjoy the rant you lack an understanding of theology.

    Deism is the idea of an impersonal god, a god that does not interact in anyone's lives and is only responsible for the broader structures in the universe. The notion of the universe being created as a result of this entities actions would would be a deistic belief.

    A theistic god is a god that does interact in peoples lives, answering prayers, inveighing, aware of human issues/interactions. The notion of a creator of the universe is a also a theistic view, but in addition to the traits outlined above.

    Einstein rejected the idea of personal god (rejecting Jesus, ensuring a ticket to hell) and favored that of deism/pantheism. Deism is incomparable with theism, they are similar in certain ways, but at the same time, there are irreconcilable differences between the two.
     
  20. Wolverine

    Wolverine New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Messages:
    16,105
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I will have to buy a new one, I am not sure if mine is repairable.
     
  21. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ahhh... finally. Evidence of your disability in the area of reading comprehension.
     
  22. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Good evidence such as .... What?
     
  23. Neutral

    Neutral New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    14,003
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, it wa not, its the guilt by association fallacy. It once again rest on your faith based assumption that there is no God and spuriously connects that belief to a known bit of mocking fraud.

    You think there is no God? Prove it.

    You think there is no Soul? Prove it.

    Otherwise, the contention that Christians/Jews/Muslims, have long stated that there is more to life than simple biology does indeed appear to be born out in ghosts.

    You dragging the FSM into this discussion is no more helpful than any other discussion such fallacious nonsense dragged into any other conversation.
     
  24. Neutral

    Neutral New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    14,003
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Agh, so photgraphic evidence of black holes is valid, but photographic evidence of ghosts is not. Because you say so.

    Thanks for ANOTHER double standard.

    No one denies black holes based on their religion. Atheists appear to be denying ghosts based solely on their reigion.

    And indeed, you are the second atheist who has deliberately misquoted me. The stuff beyond the evnt horizon of a black hole is unknown and untestable. Please get that straight.


    So, its funny to simply insult people and the point of engaging in a debate is not evidence, it is merey to castigate anything you disagree with as stupid?

    An appeal emotion. What a shock.

    Yep, but the exact same evidence proves black holes and, as I have stated, general problems with evidence does not invalidate all evidence. The fact that a DNA test can be botched does not mean that it was.

    Pretty simple. But its nice to see you ignore something based on the small chance that something could have gone wrong, without looking, rather than actually weighing and evaluating what is actually presented before you.

    Now THAT is stupid.

    Why don't you try a google search for documentation on ghosts? And what do you have to deny? Speculative guess work that is untestable and unapplied. Denial for teh sake of denial.

    One of us is using evidentiary standards, the other just taking the opposite of anything said and using falalcious arguementation. Enough said.

    We are all well aware of your double standards.


    http://www.liparanormalinvestigators.com/photos.shtml

    And why is that evidence invalid? Oh, that is right, because you have a thousand excuses you have applied to exactly zero instances.

    Yeah, they are well known and the linkage is common knowledge. Prove that haunting occur where something has not happened like that? Again, you are just denying for denials sake - unable to even agree on the common bits out of sheer obstiance.

    Its all about emotion for you.

    Really? You question my comprehension and then ask this? Read it..

    No one has exploded but you. Stop projecting slick.

    Oh look, right after the accusation of anger in others, the old ad homiem - standard atheist internet bully. It's not that the evidence isn't there, its that everyone but jerk atheists is stupid?

    Nice logical arguementation.

    Clearly my assesment that you are way too emotional about this is way off base?

    And another ad hominem. That one will be reported. Your behavior is your responsibility. Only you think you have to be a jerk to disagree.

    More guilt by association. You demand evidence, then reject it and are now talking about things that have no bearing on the subject at hand.

    Red herring.

    Try google. Actually look at one that seems strong and offer an actual rebuttal rather than simple demigodgery.


    See above. Try google.


    Or your affirmation at any cost.




    Such evidence as?

    Really, several posters have provided several sources, go ahead and look slick. BE HONEST!


    Another appeal to authority. Why present evidence is you are just goin gto dismiss it based on any old subjective standard?

    http://www.newsmonster.co.uk/parano...scientists-found-proof-that-ghosts-exist.html

    Well, I will take the word of a Ph.D with a publishe peer reviewed article over an obviously biased and angry atheist anyday.


    No, you wouldn't and indeed are not.

    Really?

    http://www.goddiscussion.com/83130/ministries-battle-ugandas-thriving-child-sacrifice-business/

    It happening right now and has for centuries. Get over yourself.

    Yes, swearing and angry fallacy is science/


    Clearly you are a troll.


    Only one side has ever produced evidence, the other blows his stack repeatedly.

    Yep, because you say so and cannot control your own tounge?

    Agh, the appeal to authority again. I used to atheist. And unlike you, I have read and understand more than one non-contextual quote form the book.

    No, I think you would say you believed in ghosts in another circumstance, I think this is all about abusing Christians and calling them stupid. Nothing more.

    Show me one fallacy that I used against you incorrectly? Just one.


    Shown repeatedly, demanded repeatedly, ignored repeatedly.



     
  25. Neutral

    Neutral New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    14,003
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nope, what you call contradictions we call context. In the blind world of atheism all violations must hav ethe exact same punishment or there is a contradiction.

    In thereal world, in most modern jurisprudence, there are things called mitigating circumstances and the opposite. Same thing in the Bible.

    All you atheists can ever do is proximity searches to show contradiction but ever single time I have attempte dto engage the context of the quotes you atheists scream bloody murder and hurl more accusations of ignorance and stupidity.

    There is nothing wrong with the Bible. Loads wrong with the standard atheist internet bully schtick.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page