Woo Denial

[Panthera tigris FC]

Yeah possibly, but most of the stories you hear are of people seeing full bodied transparent humans. People want to see the Virgin Mary because she's been burnt into their subconscious and is a way of validating their belief. What similar purpose would seeing a ghost serve?

Do they see the virgin mary because it validates their beliefs, or because they are 'tuned' to seeing such a thing? Optical illusions serve no purpose they just occur. As I said, without actually seeing what you claim, it is hard for me to comment.

Have you, personally, seen a ghost before?

 

[evo]

I don't see why motivation is particularly relevant,duckman.

Read through your posts in this thread but transpose the word "miracle" or "apparition of the virgin mary" where you've written ghost and most of your arguments dissappear.

Whats the difference?

 

[Liverpool]

Just wanted to get everyone's thoughts on different varieties of woo:
Alternative therapies?

Scams and money-making ventures for scumbags preying on the vulnerable and desperate

The existence of the soul?

I think the 'soul' (or the perception of the soul) is usually linked to someone's moral being.

For example, if you do something nice for someone because you want to...then you sometimes hear "he's a good soul".

If you are nervous or woried about something and people see that, then you hear "he's a worried looking soul".

Conversations with the dead?

Scams and money-making ventures for scumbags preying on the vulnerable and desperate

Psychics?

Scams and money-making ventures for scumbags preying on the vulnerable and desperate

Unfounded conspiracy theories?

Usually believed by people who like to think everything is deeper than what it seems.
Maybe sucked in by too much TV, too many mystery novels, or just plain gullible people to begin with and people who like to think they are "fighting against the big boys"
To me...if it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck....its usually a duck

 

[TigerForce]

Usually believed by people who like to think everything is deeper than what it seems.
Maybe sucked in by too much TV, too many mystery novels, or just plain gullible people to begin with and people who like to think they are "fighting against the big boys"
To me...if it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck....its usually a duck

Most conspiracy theories are ridiculous but for other cases where true facts are never known, they still have some value.

Strange how most terrorist attacks are caused by bomb explosion and yet 9/11 was a 'plane' flying into a building.

Seems more like an action/thriller movie too me, hence, a 'set-up' .

 

[Disco08]

Do they see the virgin mary because it validates their beliefs, or because they are 'tuned' to seeing such a thing? Optical illusions serve no purpose they just occur. As I said, without actually seeing what you claim, it is hard for me to comment.

Have you, personally, seen a ghost before?

Nope, wish I had just for the experience.

I think they see Mary because they want to validate what may otherwise be a belief of something only in their mind. It's something they really want to believe because if she's really there then so is heaven and that's where they're going when they die. If it's not true then they might just, well, die. There's strong psychological motivation driving many of these sightings IMO.

I don't see why motivation is particularly relevant,duckman.

Read through your posts in this thread but transpose the word "miracle" or "apparition of the virgin mary" where you've written ghost and most of your arguments dissappear.

Whats the difference?

The difference is motivation, which I see as highly relevant evo. My point being that people claiming to have seen Jesus, Mary, spoken to God or had miracles performed on them probably want these things to be true and to happen to them. IMO this isn't a factor in most ghost sightings and therefore the argument that the multitude of ghost sightings is proof of nothing just as the multitude of religious experiences isn't proof that God exists doesn't hold much water IMO.

 

[TigerForce]

Optical illusions serve no purpose they just occur.

Seeing a ghost 'just occurs' also.

 

[Disco08]

Scams and money-making ventures for scumbags preying on the vulnerable and desperate

So conventional western medicine is the only way to go IYO Livers? Do you include things like naturapathy and homeopathy amongst these scams?

 

[evo]

The difference is motivation, which I see as highly relevant evo. My point being that people claiming to have seen Jesus, Mary, spoken to God or had miracles performed on them probably want these things to be true and to happen to them. IMO this isn't a factor in most ghost sightings and therefore the argument that the multitude of ghost sightings is proof of nothing just as the multitude of religious experiences isn't proof that God exists doesn't hold much water IMO.

Why is it relevant though? It seems a bizzare position to hold.

It means that your contention is that illusions that you don't want to happen are plausable but illusion that you do want to happen aren't.

Using your premise this could lead us to conclude Christians really seeing God is implausable,but Christians who really see Satan is plausable(assuming they don't want to see Satan)

Or,if 2 people are at a David Copperfield show one a complete skeptic and one a believer in magic on both seeing the same illusion wwhat the skeptic sees is possibly real magic but what the true believer sees is a trick.

 

[Disco08]

I'm only saying this is a factor in religious experience, not something to base a premise about all illusions on. Don't you think a person's subconscious will can drive some of these visions?

 

[evo]

You were saying more than that though.Your clear implication in this thread is that we should take peoples accounts of ghost stories more seriously than accounts of a brush with God--due to motivation.

Of course subconscious could drive visions;in both cases.The brain is still a very mysterious instrument.

I'm studying psychology at the moment(I should actually be doing it right now, rather than on PRE ).It is almost impossible to say when the subconscious is involved and when it isn't.Therefore it is best remove it as a variable in any claims, and just examine the evidence.

And as Pantera has already pointed out "extrodinary claims,requite extraordinary evidence". Otherwise if we want to remain rational the best thing to do is suspend our belief.

 

[TigerForce]

You were saying more than that though.Your clear implication in this thread is that we should take peoples accounts of ghost stories more seriously than accounts of a brush with God--due to motivation.

Of course subconscious could drive visions;in both cases.The brain is still a very mysterious instrument.

I'm studying psychology at the moment(I should actually be doing it right now, rather than on PRE ).It is almost impossible to say when the subconscious is involved and when it isn't.Therefore it is best remove it as a variable in any claims, and just examine the evidence.

And as Pantera has already pointed out "extrodinary claims,requite extraordinary evidence". Otherwise if we want to remain rational the best thing to do is suspend our belief.

How do you examine evidence if it's in someone else's mind?

I've seen 3 premonitions in my dreams which came true later.

 

[Disco08]

You were saying more than that though.Your clear implication in this thread is that we should take peoples accounts of ghost stories more seriously than accounts of a brush with God--due to motivation.

No I wasn't, unless I've misstated my thoughts. My reasoning behind taking peoples ghost sightings more seriously actually centred on the the fact that most religious experience occurs in one's mind only. The subconscious motivation only came into it when Pantera mentioned Mary.

I know a bit about psychology myself evo, and I would say removing the subconscious as a variable from claims of religious experience would leave you with very little to work with indeed.

If one claims that ghosts exist (agreed this is an extraordinary claim), wouldn't they only need to have personally seen one or more themselves to satisfy the need for extraordinary evidence?

You keep bringing up evidence as the only real consideration. What evidence do you have that every single ghost sighting in history is simply an optical illusion? Don't a number of sightings eventually begin to constitute evidence?

 

[evo]

How do you examine evidence if it's in someone else's mind?

You can't,so you have to examine the other evidence.

And if what your examining is of spirit--or not physical in nature--then it's a waste of time.Thats why I keep saying it's first important to define what is being talked about.

I've seen 3 premonitions in my dreams which came true later.

Sweet.

Next time you dream the tattslotto numbers,or a sporting result,let me know.

 

[TigerForce]

Sweet.

Next time you dream the tattslotto numbers,or a sporting result,let me know.

So you've never dreamt of something which gave you a 'deja vu' effect later in time?

 

[Disco08]

And if what your examining is of spirit--or not physical in nature--then it's a waste of time.Thats why I keep saying it's first important to define what is being talked about.

We're talking about transparent human being-type figures which may or may not simply be an illusion. Beyond that there isn't a more refined definition AFAIK.

 

[evo]

I know a bit about psychology myself evo, and I would say removing the subconscious as a variable from claims of religious experience would leave you with very little to work with indeed.

So to, ghosts.

If one claims that ghosts exist (agreed this is an extraordinary claim), wouldn't they only need to have personally seen one or more themselves to satisfy the need for extraordinary evidence?

Change the word ghosts with "Christian God ",and theres your answer.

You keep bringing up evidence as the only real consideration. What evidence do you have that every single ghost sighting in history is simply an optical illusion? Don't a number of sightings eventually begin to constitute evidence?

Again,change the word ghosts with 'christian god' and that could be a verbatim statement fron Jayfox.

I thought you understood the concept of it being impossible to prove a negative.

"Russels teapot."

 

[evo]

So you've never dreamt of something which gave you a 'deja vu' effect later in time?

Everyone has I'd say.

The question is do you actually believe you saw into the future?

 

[Dyer Disciple]

Stimulating thread guys.

Some very nice posting Evo. :clap

 

[TigerForce]

Everyone has I'd say.

The question is do you actually believe you saw into the future?

So why remove the sub-conscious mind as any factual evidence then?

Someone has seen something that HASN'T happened yet.

 

[evo]

So why remove the sub-conscious mind as any factual evidence then?

You answered that question yourself......

How do you examine evidence if it's in someone else's mind?

Someone has seen something that HASN'T happened yet.

If you believe that you can get glimpses of the future then in my view you need to examine all the implications of cause and effect.And the meaning of the word "time"

Up to you though.