why we need ghosts

No..I'm saying just as I don't generalize my disbelief in the storybook character Darth Vader to all extraterrestrials, so I don't generalize my disbelief in the storybook character God to all spirits. The logic here is self-evident.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If this thread were about "beliefs" then it would be very short indeed.

If MR asserted that he, personally, believes in ghosts, but does not wish to defend his belief to others, then all would be peachy.
He could have his beliefs, just as any God-believer could.

Yet he flat out doesn't believe in God.
But if someone else where to flat out not believe in ghosts, he gets all pissy.
That's hypocrisy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And here we go with the typical personal attacks:

You never asked me why I don't believe in God. You asked why I don't believe objects moving by themselves are acts of God. And I told you why. Because I don't believe in God. If you want to discuss people's reasons for not believing in God, I suggest starting a thread in the Religion forum. As I've said already, this isn't the place for a theological discussion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But you said that you don't believe in ANY God, but you might well believe in some extraterrestrials. The conflict there is self-evident.

There are innumerable depictions of ghosts, from Casper to Poltergeist to the proven frauds out there. You have admitted these are false stories (like Darth Vader, to use your term.) Yet you still seem to believe in ghosts.

There are innumerable depictions of God, from the Roman Catholic God to the childless Hebrew God to Zeus to the God of Islam. Yet you don't believe in any of them.

Why the disconnect? Why reject God, while accepting spirits and ghosts?

 

These are not personal attacks. These are dismantling of the faulty logic that you present here.

You cannot dismiss God as an explanation for unexplained events simply because you don't believe in him.
If that were an acceptable defense, this whole thread would be about two posts long.
MR: "Here's some ghosts."
Everybody else "We don't believe in ghosts, therefore it can't be ghosts."

We've asked a valid question: How do you distinguish acts of a ghost from acts of God?
Your response about "not believing in" God contradicts your own assertions about ghosts, and invalidates any and all objections you've had about skeptics' explanations.

Nice try. If someone suggested it was remotely operated by a cell phone and a servo-motor, would you cry foul, and suggest that be taken up in the technology forum? No.

You presented this video, here. We get to analyze it without needing your approval or foregone conclusions.

And you need to defend your assertion why it's ghosts. There are a dozen equally valid explanations for the events in the video - one of which - by your own logic - is God. Show how it's not.

 

I assure you I totally can. Just as I can dismiss the Easter Bunny as an explanation for unexplained events. I dismiss these as explanations all the time because I don't believe in such beings. There's really nothing more to be said here.

 

Fair enough then.

It's not ghosts because ghosts don't exist. Thread closed.

That is a response you must accept unless to declare yourself a hypocrite.

Further: since all you are doing is stating your personal beliefs, and not asserting them as objective, you have no business criticizing anyone else for any alternate answer.

 

I never said that. I said just as I don't disbelieve in extraterrestrials because I don't believe in Darth Vader, so too do I not disbelieve in spirits because I don't believe in God. If you are still having trouble with this, go back and read the original post.

 

I know you want all threads with compelling evidence for the paranormal closed, but you aren't a moderator. So spare us the arrogant posing.

Where have I ever criticized anyone's beliefs?

 

As a very young kid, I believed in Santa and didn't believe in ghosts. Was I hypocritical? No, of course not.

It's not that I allowed that ghosts could exist but I just didn't believe in them. I thought the idea was silly but I did believe in Santa. I had reasons though. Presents showed up.

MR has his own reasons for why it's not silly to believe in ghosts and he feels it is silly (putting words in his mouth here I realize) to believe in God.

That's what we all do all the time. He is being discerning according to his own internal criteria.

 

Is there any ghost that you specifically can believe in i.e. The House Haunted by Hitler's Horse?

 

(You state the obvious. Zero points.)

The point is: There is no need to continue this thread. You have provided the definitive answer.

It's not ghosts because ghosts don't exist.
That is an answer you must accept.
Quoting you: 'there's really nothing more to say'.

 

No. He is insisting that he is, objectively, right. Any alternate explanations are met with venom. Even if they reveal him as hypocritical.

He is not discussing; he is preaching - and flattering himself that his beliefs are the only valid ones.

This is a discussion forum, not a blog.

 

But I never asked why it isn't ghosts. I simply provide people with evidence they haven't considered yet.

 

Yup. It's God.

Why are you posting videos of God in a ghosts forum?

Reporting.

 

More personal attacks. One is wont to get the impression that the whole purpose of Dave's rather feverish diatribe is to attack me as a person.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yea, I’m not sure of the correlation between believing in God, and believing in paranormal activity? I believe in God, but that’s not why I’m open minded to the idea of ghosts existing.

Honestly, it’s two different mindsets.
So, it’s not that unusual for MR to make the separation, imo.

 

And again, your person is not being attacked. Your argument - only what you have presented, here - is being attacked. Your own logic - as you have presented it, here - is contradictory.

One the other hand, you are doing a grand example of attacking me, rather than my argument.

 

Thing is, this is not a thread about what we "believe" in. Beliefs don't need to be defended. What does need to be defended is assertions of things as if they objective fact - assertions that attempt to rule out alternate explanations.

If MR said "I personally believe these are ghosts."
and others say "Unlikely, here are a dozen other explanations."
MR should say "OK, that's possible, but I'll stick to my personal beliefs."
And that should be a very short thread.

 

Whoa!

If it is actually The Ghost of Jesus doing that, they'd both be real.

https://www1.cbn.com/700club/ghost-jesus