Ghosts?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Tarski
_Emeritus
Posts: 3059
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:57 pm

Re: Ghosts?

Post by _Tarski »

Calculus Crusader wrote:I am inclined to agree with those who think the soul rises with the body rather than floats around without it but I also affirm that "there are more things in heaven and earth...than are dreamt of in [our philosophies]."

"Ghost" being one of the things dreamt of in our philosophies.
The unknowns waiting to be revealed (presumably by science) will bear no resemblance to the mostly silly fantasies we have dreamt up.
when believers want to give their claims more weight, they dress these claims up in scientific terms. When believers want to belittle atheism or secular humanism, they call it a "religion". -Beastie

yesterday's Mormon doctrine is today's Mormon folklore.-Buffalo
_Simon Belmont

Re: Ghosts?

Post by _Simon Belmont »

Tarski wrote:Huh? You mean photons more energetic than gamma rays?


I mean unknown elements that cannot be detected by our current technologies. When you ask if they are more energetic than gamma rays, you are thinking about this in human terms, defining it by only what we know. What about all that we do not know?

A Ghost would have no reason to look like a primate. What would a ghost do with teeth? How would it think without a brain?
The details don't fit at all.


Again you are defining something not fully known by our limited human understanding of things. Also, most paranormal investigators view "ghosts" as not having a definite shape or form, and "apparitions" as spirits who take on human form.

Ghosts wouldn't be able to see us or any ordinary light at all us if they were transparent.
It is a conceptually silly notion for hundreds of interrelated reasons.


It is a silly notion when you box it into only that which we currently understand.
_Tarski
_Emeritus
Posts: 3059
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:57 pm

Re: Ghosts?

Post by _Tarski »

Simon Belmont wrote:

I mean unknown elements that cannot be detected by our current technologies. When you ask if they are more energetic than gamma rays, you are thinking about this in human terms, defining it by only what we know.

Do you beleive you can talk and think in terms of what we don't know?

What about all that we do not know?

There isn't any conclusion to be drawn here. Nothing at all.


Again you are defining something not fully known by our limited human understanding of things. Also, most paranormal investigators view "ghosts" as not having a definite shape or form, and "apparitions" as spirits who take on human form
.

This is a silly gambit. As soon as you start down this path you may as well believe that millions of invisible McDonalds cheeseburgers are constantly copulating in your hair while contemplating greenish communism.



It is a silly notion when you box it into only that which we currently understand.

It is just silly. Silly like the idea that reindeer fly. Actually much sillier. It is silly like the idea that vacuum cleaners go to heaven or that goldfish play guitar but only while no one is looking.
when believers want to give their claims more weight, they dress these claims up in scientific terms. When believers want to belittle atheism or secular humanism, they call it a "religion". -Beastie

yesterday's Mormon doctrine is today's Mormon folklore.-Buffalo
_zeezrom
_Emeritus
Posts: 11938
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 8:57 pm

Re: Ghosts?

Post by _zeezrom »

Redefined wrote:Maybe people just assign the energy they feel as "demon" or "angel", and it isn't anything more than a powerful demonstration of what the human mind can sense when the body is in a state that is more aware of its emotions. My first thought to this was that I think it is good that "demons" are much easier to see. . . as in embrace your demons because if ya follow from above, then it is embracing the powerful, aggressive, dominant, commanding, driven side of yourself or of humanity rather than the "angel" side which is the docile, reflective, softer side. Both are good, but I would say that the "demon" side is more solid.

ETA. . . nothing scary about it, it's just that the raw emotion of "demon" can be more overwhelming, rather than the calm, soothing effect of "angel".


Cool, Re.
Oh for shame, how the mortals put the blame on us gods, for they say evils come from us, but it is they, rather, who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given... Zeus (1178 BC)

The Holy Sacrament.
_Simon Belmont

Re: Ghosts?

Post by _Simon Belmont »

Tarski wrote:Do you beleive you can talk and think in terms of what we don't know?


Yes, otherwise how would what we do not know ever become what we do know? Imagine and ability to creatively think are some of our most important qualities.

There isn't any conclusion to be drawn here. Nothing at all.


The conclusion to be drawn is that one cannot assert that he knows for a fact that there is no supernatural realm, and that all alleged evidences for the supernatural can be reduced to subjective brain malfunction.

This is a silly gambit. As soon as you start down this path you may as well believe that millions of invisible McDonalds cheeseburgers are constantly copulating in your hair while contemplating greenish communism.


There is no evidence for your scenario of McDonalds cheeseburgers. There is evidence, some subjective, some filmed or photographed of supernatural events.

It is just silly. Silly like the idea that reindeer fly. Actually much sillier. It is silly like the idea that vacuum cleaners go to heaven or that goldfish play guitar but only while no one is looking.


The difference, of course, is that people have recalled very detailed, very real supernatural experiences. I do not know of anyone who has experienced a reindeer fly (although, it a reindeer were transported on an animal cargo plane, would it be flying?)
_Darth J
_Emeritus
Posts: 13392
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:16 am

Re: Ghosts?

Post by _Darth J »

Simon Belmont wrote:Also, most paranormal investigators view "ghosts" as not having a definite shape or form, and "apparitions" as spirits who take on human form.


"A full-torso vaporous apparition....and it's real!"

Image
_MrStakhanovite
_Emeritus
Posts: 5269
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:32 am

Re: Ghosts?

Post by _MrStakhanovite »

You're right, no human being would stack books like this.

Image
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Re: Ghosts?

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Belmont
The difference, of course, is that people have recalled very detailed, very real supernatural experiences. I do not know of anyone who has experienced a reindeer fly (although, it a reindeer were transported on an animal cargo plane, would it be flying?)



What? Are you seriously saying there is no evidence for flying reindeer?
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
_The Nehor
_Emeritus
Posts: 11832
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:05 am

Re: Ghosts?

Post by _The Nehor »

Ezias wrote:
The Nehor wrote:Angels and demons and everything in between are accepted in LDS doctrine. I have no idea how much they interact with us beyond my own limited experience which is sadly mostly with demons. At least the stuff I am positive was some kind of spirit. It's possible angels and the rest are influencing me in minor ways regularly and often.



Don't you hate that? The demons are so much easier to see. The angels usually are sensed more subtley. Usually a sensation of light, or for me, synchronicities lining up.


No, my few experiences with angels were more concrete then that. How they interact with me and others on a daily level (or whether they even do) I do not know.

I read somewhere that the reason for this is demons and negative energy is on a lower vibrational level than good spirits, and therefore closer to our dimension. This is probably just someones conjecture though. I really don't know.


I'm going to agree with that being conjecture.

Did you cast out a demon? Exorcisms rock. It's nice when you are the one being worked on or "exorsized" too. You feel so much better with the demons/negative energy gone.


I disagree. It's an almost ugly thing. Devils are creatures of grit, hatred, anger, and fear. I do not like messing with them unless I have to. Being in their presence when they are trying to share a body can make me feel unclean and brings out the worst in me. There is nothing 'cool' or 'rocking' about it. At least not in what I've experienced. Just God overpowering the creature and weakening it's hold.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
_Inconceivable
_Emeritus
Posts: 3405
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:44 am

Re: Ghosts?

Post by _Inconceivable »

Ezias wrote:
Hades wrote:Hell ya, I believe in ghosts. My dead relatives keep coming to me telling me that Mormonism is bunk.


I think that some of my dead realatives still believe it. That is what scares me the most about the power of mormonsim. The brainwashing may last into the next life. I've had some experiences to this effect.

I've also had the experiences where those beyond the veil have confirmed to me that this god-awful Mormon church is true. So many events that I lost count.

Particularly when channelling during priesthood blessings. Sometimes I would even heal people (this ran in my family). There were many instances where I would say things that would not otherwise have crossed my mind. Things I would not have regarded if they had not flowed through me. Revealing a person's character and prophesying their future, messages from the Mormon god (mostly of his love for them - I think these were simply dead relatives posing), bringing a great deal of peace into the room, healing etc. After such channelling I would feel nearly and sometimes entirely exhausted. It used to blow me (and others) away the things I would say and the things that would occur. I enjoyed it at the time. It was quite humbling. I had to be "Mormon clean" to make it work. I would prepare myself by getting square with the Mormon god. I had to let go of my pride, my baggage and my preconceived notions. Just a committment to say whatever flowed through me. This was one reason why I knew early on that there was no way in hell, Joseph Smith was capable of the freeflow of revelation.

by the way, the moment I clicked the "enter" button to find out how many children Joseph and Emma had on the church's Geneological site this ability vanished - In other words's whoever they were that spoke through me. This was the first day of my inquisitiveness several years ago - the study that would lead me straightway out of the church. I haven't had the ability since. Now I would prefer not to have it. As I reflect back, it was misleading and meddling.

Yeah, no doubt, some of my dead relatives are yet deluded. Why else would they linger after seeing that the Mormon hereafter is not what they are experiencing. I'm sure many of them are meddling out of sheer denial.
Post Reply