Ghosts are Proof of God

I don't need to reinvent the wheel as far as documentation of spirits goes. You can either believe what is produced, or like yourself, just say no and cross your arms
over your chest in a classic non compliant pose.
Frankly, atheists are proud of their skepticism and non belief (to the point of unthinking dogma) so I'm not surprised.

No, I see it's relevance. It's crucial for you to mock and, except as an instrument of ridicule, it fills no function. But it may interest you to note that many of the greatest minds in human history (Socrates, Plato, Da Vinci,
Newton, Kierkegaard, Einstein, etc.) have somehow found the idea of God acceptable and proper. Their regard for the invisible pink unicorn must therefore be necessarily zero (hey! that's my view too!).

See above argument.

I've already schooled you once on why the term "zombie" is absurd in the context of Jesus. It still is.

"Persistent energy" really doesn't have any meaning to it. It sounds like you want to agree to the premise of a soul, but your dogma won't let you...pity.

The soul is the individual spiritual spark that is part of the great roaring fire (so to speak) that is God and perhaps you can't or won't see this because your God gene is defective.

I put out in the original post in this thread a clear easy to understand series of steps that connects the notion of a transcendent soul to God. To willfully deny the clear unambiguous connection (which many others can easily understand) is just denial of what you'd rather not be forced to confront.

 

You watch too many ghost movies.

 

I've not seen one solitary video of an orb that wasn't explicable as natural phenomena. Parsimony demands the simpler of explanations, and that would go to the known over the unknown essentially every time.

Do you say the same thing about faeries or chemtrails?

You, quite obviously.

You honestly can't see why, if one part of an account is completely fabricated, then the rest is so suspect as to be worthless?

Again: I don't go running off to prove or disprove fabricated stories.

Dr. Barrie Colvin is not a real person. As I stated above, I did not find a single, solitary writing of his on either JSTOR or ProQuest Databases, both of which store astronomical numbers of published papers from all disciplines. All I found of him was in connection to multiple copypasta jobs of that article you linked to.

Clearly.

How many experts are, say, Nikon or Canon optics experts, as opposed to ghost hunting lay persons?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohfocjCX2sc"]TAPS LIES - Ghost Hunters Live - 2008 - Fraud-O-Rama - YouTube[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cxp8pBJDQAE&feature=player_embedded"]Ghost Adventures Shadow Hand ANALYZED! - YouTube[/ame]

The issue is the paparazzi don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about SyFy and Travel Channel b-celebrities who don't matter.

Also: notice how I also said they could be incompetent. I'm guessing that TAPS is more toward fraud, Zak n' crew are more toward incompetent. However, I let that slide for Zak n' crew, as the concept of ghost hunting bros is highly entertaining. I never tire of hearing Zak yell "WHAT THE (*)(*)(*)(*) WAS THAT, BRO?!?"

Yes, because on that photo of a dog, we see all the shots in the sequence and have audio recording too. You're the one applying specific instances to generals, bro.

Humans are pattern finding machines, even where none actually exist. Hence, finding shapes in clouds, ice crystals on windows, or other completely random phenomena. It works even better when you want something to appear (hence, the whole use of such fortune-telling methods as tasseography, myomancy, ornithomancy, and so on).

I have, repeatedly. That you won't accept conclusions counter to your own preconceptions is not my problem.

Where you blew up and called me a super-victim and where you repeatedly paint yourself as a holier-than-thou non-insulter (in spite of riddling your posts with insults).

I thought you were counseling everyone to

You atheists say you welcome rebuttal, that skepticism is good, but when people actually disagree with you, you blow your stack and get personal at teh drop of the hat - and your excuses for your behavior are about as good as your speculation is in solving something.

Which is, at this point, just the continuous introduction of speculation devoid of testing or verification - an arguement from the absurd.

http://www.blueplanetbiomes.org/mojave_climate.htm

The Mojave is generally below 40% during the summer, hovers around 50% during the winter.

http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weather/almanac/arc2009/alm09jul.htm
Relative humidity is below 30% for weeks at a time (indicating it rises above 30% during some of the time) for Death Valley, among the driest of places on this planet.

Long Island is considerably more moist than the Mojave and Death Valley, as it is an island, not a high-altitude desert bounded by mountains.

Ideally, we'd find similar weather conditions and take a (*)(*)(*)(*)load of pictures and see what results to compare. In the absence of that, though, we must go with parsimony: known phenomena that occur on a regular basis.

When I wear shorts, they don't get wet when I walk in a puddle 3 inches deep. When I wear baggy jeans that are long on me, they get wet.

Huh, turns out different objects have different material properties in the same conditions. High-quality night vision goggles likely have nearly watertight seams and seals, while an unknown make and model of camera might be of far less quality construction that allows water vapor into the body of the camera to condense.

Why do you assume all those foggy wisps occur yards away from the camera instead of nearly directly in front of the lens? Without multiple cameras taking pictures of the same area, it can be difficult ascertain distance from the lens to the object being photographed (that's why we evolved two eyes; stereoscopic vision allows for depth perception, which is notably lacking in cameras).

You realize that air with moisture in it would precede the actual snowfall, right? There's a reason barometric pressure and relative humidity changes prior to storms, not at the exact moment precipitation begins to fall from the clouds.

Smudge was the wrong word to use; a large flash artifact would be more appropriate.

If you wish to overhaul large sections of scientific knowledge, yes. I'd demand the same of people arguing for perpetual motion devices, chemtrails, or arguments that the WTC towers were brought down with remote control missiles.

If you had solid evidence, this wouldn't be a problem. Instead, you bring me smudged photos, white noise, and fictional people.

Sleep paralysis and night terrors. Turns out demon possession/witch attack during the night is a simple physiological problem that we solved using science, not blind acceptance of age old tales.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98195&page=1

Visual stimuli can shape memories, yes. Whether it's a cut-out of Bugs Bunny or a smudged lens.

Most people are surprisingly ignorant of the subject. Nearly 50% of Americans, for instance, reject the basic principles of it. Also, as someone in a master's program for biology, I do in fact have rather strong confidence that I'm much more qualified to talk about it then most laymen.

They apply to everyone; however, again, if you want to prove the existence of ghosts, you have to provide statistically sound evidence. The null hypothesis is the default in science; thus, no ghosts until proven otherwise. Same with extant thylacines, bigfoot, faeries, cold fusion, and Higgs bosons.

Well, if you want to actually prove it. However, again, your evidence is still (*)(*)(*)(*). None of those photographs is worth anything, those recordings all sound like white noise to me, and your story is fabricated.

Would you say the same things about homeopathy?

 

I like how you're throwing wild speculation around when all you have to go on is crappy photos and fabricated stories.

Appeal to popularity.

JSTOR, ProQuest Databases, and Google all return nothing on the guy.

No, actually. I was referring to Dr. Barnie Colvin. I accept that Yeshua was probably an actual person. Almost certainly not what the Bible claims about him, but he seems to have been an actual human being who pissed off Roman authorities in Iudea and was killed for ruining the status quo of Iudea.

 

Any proof?

 

If such things were substantiated, they would be more reliable. As it stands, such things haven't been substantiated yet.

 

I'm sure plenty of paranormal investigators have it. I don't.

 

Lets see if we can't just sum up this speculative BS. You were given a very specific challenge, and that is to actually rebut the very evidence that you demand.

#1 - Rather than rebut orbs which are common ... you show a video of a hand. Somehow though, your denial is desperate?

#2 - You dare show a YOU TUBE video as evidence after dismissing the all the videos as fraud? Without evidence? Hypocrisy.

#3 - You continue to level accusations of stupidity and insults in others. Now people are ignorant of biology, in addition to having faulty memories - and it is amazing how NONE of these things apply to you.

#4 - Not a single claim you have made has been connected to anything that has been shown you. Nothing.

All you have is fiction! Anything other solution, not matter how farcical or irrelevant is acceptable to you, and you have convienently already placed yourself on a mantel of superiority to dismiss any challenges as stupid.

It sheer obstinate denial at any cost. Typical atheism.

BTW - have you ever been in the Mojave desert? I have. And your quoting of humidity percentages has abolsutely nothing to do with teh statement that humidy must be quite high for their to be visible vapor in the air. So, thank you for thinking general science knowledge means you are not wrong - but it does show the lengths that you will go to in order NOT to challenge your beliefs .... and atheists say skepticism is a good thing? Not for them.

 

Its been presented several time ostrich. Stop asking for the same things over and over again.

As you and Ak prove, it doesn;t really matter does it? You will deny at all costs.

 

No! The same cannot be said of leprechauns, Sarah Palin/ Hitler, etc. This is absurd and too bad you aren't as interested in making pertinent points as you are silly childish digs at religion.

Plato (a fairly sharp guy) defined the soul as the eternal essence of our being. What makes ghosts essential in this context is that they, obviously, are drawn to familiar or traumatic places and locations and it seems the loss of their brains have not erased attachments formed while still alive.

What of them?

No reason for you to think it, apparently. Your God gene is defective.

 

And so were you.

Is English not among the languages you are fluent in? Because, if you understood it more, you'd realize those videos were in reply to your point about television ghost hunting programs being either fraudulent or run by incompetents.

You're using ghost websites that are absolutely replete with (*)(*)(*)(*)ty graphics and horrible production values, so why should I take those seriously instead of dismissing them out of hand? I at least go through them and point out some serious issues with them, while all you can do is get the vapors that I got a couple videos off of YouTube that you aren't even rebutting.

Over half the US rejects the basic, fundamental principle of biology. That ranks as pretty gorram ignorant to me.

Proof plz.

You might want to visit a psychologist about your issues with projection. It's unbecoming.

So, do you actually have something to prove or just a ton of bluster and outrage?

It is sheer, obstinate affirmation at any cost. Typical theism.

So, you think Long Island is as humid in general as the Mojave or Death Valley, especially when a front full of precipitation is right on top of it (Long Island, not the deserts)?

 

As an atheist I contend no such thing. I contend that there is insufficient evidence to support the hypothesis which claims we possess souls that are independent of our physical beings. I therefore contend that consciousness is most likely an emergent property of our physical brains.

 

Very well for you. But most atheists have no problems contending death is the end of everything.

Well, that's the problem with death. The only way to find out what happens when you die is to actually die. But that's why I think paranormal research is useful and may be instructive.
If some spirits are stuck in their spiritual development and cannot move past earthly attachments then that's proof of afterlife and all that implies.

There are medically recorded instances of brain dead people who have all recounted the tunnel leading to the light phenomenon upon their unlikely recoveries. This would tend to discount your view.

 

There are more than two issues with your post but I will focus on the main two.

#1 - I have not stated my beliefs on ghosts one way or the other, I have merey shown that those who do believe in ghosts have solid, though inconclusive reasons upon which that belief is there.

#2 - You refuse to even accept that, throwing out wild speculation, irrelevant scientific jargon, charges of fraud and fakery (all without proof mind you), and refuse to accept even the premise that anyone can or should have a different opinion about ghosts than you - and have effectively shut down all exploration of the subject with rabid denial and hypocritical excuses.

It equates to one simple thing about atheism: it is the most intolerant and closeminded religion on earth. If ghosts prove anything, they certainly prove that.

 

And you base this upon???? Again, why do atheists think that OUR contention must affirm some supernatural sceintific standard of evidence (which they can neither define nor can they ever achieve said standard of denial), but any random hypothesis, even bereft of support or arguementation, must be considered totally valid?

 

The thing is, you have failed miserable to substantiate your argument. Your imagined "atheist dogma" is merely a cover, a red herring, to distract the real issue. You have as good of a good job substantiating your argument as I have linking ghosts to the invisible pink unicorn.

They did not believe in your god, and are probably rotting in your hell as we speak should you be correct. There is a difference between deism and theism that you fail to understand. There are many minds who have rejected the notion of god, however I am not going to make a fallacious appeal to authority to somehow divert the debate.

He died and came back from the dead. Fits the description of a zombie. Zombie Jesus.

It is a pity that you are unable to accept very simple arguments. I have already said that I am not opposed to the existence of a soul or a deity, there is simply a lack of evidence for both. Both of which you have continuously failed to substantiate.

You are still connecting invisible dots that have little relevance to each other.

 

A creaking house is proof?

Can you cite what posts have the substantiated proof?

Your argument is laughable.

 

Then why not post some?

 

I realize that I haven't convinced you of anything (because of that dogma) but that doesn't take away from the argument made.

What makes you think you know about "my God" and "my hell"? Your presumptions indicate a closed mind.

I haven't failed to understand it at all. Why would you think that?

How noble of you, but when at least half of your argument against God rests entirely on it's absurdity it's appropriate to point out all the incredibly accomplished minds that happen to think you are totally wrong and don't find the notion absurd at all.

And presumably "zombie Jesus" had a desire for human flesh and stiffly walked about
in a lumbering, catatonic stupor looking for brains to eat...right?
A zombie is a very specific thing, but how could you know that?
You would have more credence if you didn't always unethically try to stack the deck this way but I guess you can't help yourself

Odd. Others have found lots of evidence for both, but with your open minded attitude you may still come around.

 

when you sleep, its the end of the day, right? I mean, you aint thinking about it any further, right?

 

he is no longer thinking about it

but what he did is still alive

then you can never call me an atheist ever again.

As like einstein, mother nature (existence itself) is god.

ie... we are ONE with God

where as the difference with wingnuts is they make believe god is something separate.

 

When I can get to it.

 

I know of no verifiable detection of ghosts so I disagree with point A
Since point A is NOT proven Point B is moot and cannot be proven.
Same with point C, it builds on the false assumption that point A is a FACT.
D is a false conclusion, a house of cards built on point A.
sorry you have PROVEN nothing.
show any articles or findings that have conclusively PROVEN point A.

 

there is a million dollar prize, if ANYONE Can.