Ghosts

I've always thought of agnosticists as someone that's... Akk, I don't even know! I know one thing, though: This is something that I will never just figure out the answer to, no matter how many hours of pondering and thinking I put into it. Therefore, I've just kept the entire subject at a distance, never thinking about it too much. It ghosts do exist, they haven't bothered me so far. :)

And, if you are only 99% sure about this, you are, per definition, an agnostic. :) At least I think that's the definition... :/
 
You're right, and: "The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge."
 
Erik said:
I remember occasionally when I was younger, I would get these rather frightening half dream/half awake type things that were really very vague, but always had a feeling of me being in the middle of something IMMENSE, something so huge that I can't even explain it, I have no idea what it was, just a vague sensation of something so suffocating and overpowering that I would have no chance against it, whatever it was

I had some very similar halfdreams like this when I was little too. Almost like a pulsing pressure being put on me from every angle (inside and out). It hurt like a bitch too... reminded me of diving too deep and getting that pounding in your ears, but it was everywhere. And while all this was going on, I couldn't move, but I could "think" my way, but it was like running on a large black ball in a void of black, going nowhere and it made no difference if I tried to "move" or not. And then suddenly i'd wake up and be in a different part of the house, or under my bed and onetime outside.
 
Erik said:
What is this sleep paralysis thing exactly?

I remember occasionally when I was younger, I would get these rather frightening half dream/half awake type things that were really very vague, but always had a feeling of me being in the middle of something IMMENSE, something so huge that I can't even explain it, I have no idea what it was, just a vague sensation of something so suffocating and overpowering that I would have no chance against it, whatever it was


http://www.stanford.edu/~dement/paralysis.html

That should answer any questions.
 
Crimson Velvet said:
And, if you are only 99% sure about this, you are, per definition, an agnostic. :) At least I think that's the definition... :/

Well, to me, Agnostic = someone that's not yet decided whether to believe in god or not. Someone that's waiting for further evidence before taking the final plunge.

Either way, I didn't really think we were talking about label definitions, rather which side of the fence you choose to sit on. I simply choose not to sit on the fence at all.
 
Agnosticism is not about sitting on the fence. It's about realizing that we, as humans, cannot even fathom the whole "higher being" situation. It is pretty egotistical to think otherwise.
 
Doomcifer said:
Agnosticism is not about sitting on the fence. It's about realizing that we, as humans, cannot even fathom the whole "higher being" situation. It is pretty egotistical to think otherwise.
.
 
Doomcifer said:
Agnosticism is not about sitting on the fence.

It is absolutely about sitting on the fence. :tickled: How can it be otherwise? It's very simple:

Q: Do you believe in a God?
Agnostic: I don't know.

Q: Do you not believe in a God?
Agnostic: I don't know.

Q: Well, which one do you believe in then?
Agnostic: I could go either way. I haven't been able to fathom this whole "higher being" thing yet.

If that isn't sitting on the fence, I don't know what is. :loco:

It's about realizing that we, as humans, cannot even fathom the whole "higher being" situation. It is pretty egotistical to think otherwise.

So let me ask this: if Jesus visits you this evening from heaven, and proves his very being and explains the meaning of life to you, then by sunrise you will be a believer of Christ, right? You will have been able to "fathom the higher being", as evidence would have been granted, and there would be no more room for ambivalence. Correct?

I take my kid to the museum and tell her all about dinosaurs and evolution. I don't quickly rush her off to church immediately after to balance the equation. Likewise, I don't think religous people only believe in God on certain days of the week. :tickled:
 
JayKeeley said:
It is absolutely about sitting on the fence. :tickled: How can it be otherwise? It's very simple:

Q: Do you believe in a God?
Agnostic: I don't know.

Q: Do you not believe in a God?
Agnostic: I don't know.

Q: Well, which one do you believe in then?
Agnostic: I could go either way. I haven't been able to fathom this whole "higher being" thing yet.

If that isn't sitting on the fence, I don't know what is. :loco:


How can you be "on the fence" about something that isn't even FACTUAL. It doesn't even make sense.

JayKeeley said:
So let me ask this: if Jesus visits you this evening from heaven, and proves his very being and explains the meaning of life to you, then by sunrise you will be a believer of Christ, right? You will have been able to "fathom the higher being", as evidence would have been granted, and there would be no more room for ambivalence. Correct?

I take my kid to the museum and tell her all about dinosaurs and evolution. I don't quickly rush her off to church immediately after to balance the equation. Likewise, I don't think religous people only believe in God on certain days of the week. :tickled:

Its human nature to pattern spiritual beliefs after ourselves. The greeks called it hubris - the tendency of men to assign themselves god like qualities and to assign their gods the attributes of men. It is the ultimate arrogance.

If you try and tell a cockroach that he is in New York he will not understand. He cannot. He does not have the capacity. Nor does he need it to live.

Assuming there are higher forms of life than us, why would one assume the situation would be any diferent? At some point those forms have capacities that are unkown and unknowable to us. And presumably, forms that sit above them have capacities that are even further removed from our level of understanding.

A cockroach is aware of us, as a giant shadowy form that means "run". But he can't discern anything beyond that. Who knows, maybe our awareness of what sits above us in the heirarchy of the universe is about the same -we see shadows and that's about it.

Our words to describe what we cannot ever have the capacity to understand... i.e. "the big bang" or "the creator" or whatever - they are our best attempts to quantify what cannot be quantified and yet they will always fall short. The term "supernatural" really means "outside of what I know as natural" - it is in and of itself a confession of ignorance.

"Science" and "Religion" are just two approaches we use to try and understand what we cannot imho.

But I digress. I don't usually talk about serious shit on the internet.
 
I'm just amazed at how civil this has remained. These discussions with some of my friends end up in yelling, screaming, sometimes even fighting.... of course, we've usually been drinking at the time... sooo... :erk:
 
Doomcifer said:
How can you be "on the fence" about something that isn't even FACTUAL. It doesn't even make sense.

I'm talking about being "on the fence" in making a choice, not proving the existence of something. I choose not to believe in Adam and Eve. I don't sit and procrastinate over their existence. I'm not even saying one is correct and the other is false (that would be arrogant), all I am saying is that I've made a choice. Agnostics have not made a choice.

Assuming there are higher forms of life than us, why would one assume the situation would be any diferent?

Right. If you believe in ghosts and pixies, then you have to be accepting of the possibility of Jesus Christ and all his saints. All of which are potentially higher forms of life. That's all anyone is saying as far as I can tell.

Our words to describe what we cannot ever have the capacity to understand... i.e. "the big bang" or "the creator" or whatever - they are our best attempts to quantify what cannot be quantified

Only for now. Science proved the world was not flat. Eventually we'll have the answers to everything, it's just a matter of time -- I truly believe that. I'm willing to bet that science will prove theories well before religion, and I'm not about to fill the void with fairytales until that day arrives.



I'm still curious as to what a so-called agnostic would do if they were to come face to face with Jesus. If that encounter explained everything to the point where there were no more questions left to be answered, would that then make the agnostic a believer in Christ?

I'm genuinely curious if anyone wants to take a stab at answering that.
 
JayKeeley said:
I'm still curious as to what a so-called agnostic would do if they were to come face to face with Jesus. If that encounter explained everything to the point where there were no more questions left to be answered, would that then make the agnostic a believer in Christ?

*takes bait*

Yes?
 
Depends what all those facts were. If he explained that he was some extraterrestrial con artist, i'd tell him to stick it up his ass. If it was that he created this that and all this shit, yeah, i probably would believe in him. Not that it'd make any difference in my life. I don't have a problem with the existence of a "deity", i have a problem with religions.

God doesn't tell people to blow themselves up, or to give away all their shit, or to fuck the altar boy. Thats the job of the priestly figure that runs the place. Religions = hypocritical. Deities? nobody honestly knows, which just adds to the hypocrisy of religion.

I live my life my own way, and the existence of jesus/allah/Odin/Your Fat Mom won't make a difference to that. It just means I'll know they exist or they don't. Either way, i'm gonna continue ignoring people until they prove they DESERVE my attention, respect, friendship, kindness, generosity or in some cases, pure hate.
 
J. said:
In response to spaffe's post, JayK and IotS pretty much summed it up. I can't really add anything to it.

Like JayK has been saying, you either believe in ghosts/God/afterlife, etc, or you don't. There really is no middle ground. I'm not saying that ghosts and a God are the same, but both are extra-ordinary "beings", and to believe that one exists and to totally ignore the other is not a firm stance. Both have offered zero tangible evidence of their existence.

Sure, ghosts are usually regareded as something super natural, but how that would validate the existance of the jewish-christian-muslim god (which I assume that you're refering to, since you used a capital "G"), and all the jibberish surrouning it, is something I don't understand at all.

Now the thing is, I'm not an atheist, to be that and also belive in the existance of ghosts at the same time would obviously be pretty stupid.

Personally spaffe, I'd like you to explain how ghosts can exist (which means people have souls/spirits, which means an afterlife), but you find the dea of God and Heaven/Hell to be foolish.

Well basically because I'm firmly convinced that the whole doctrine of christianty (and all other organized religions for that matter) is man made in order to make the "thing" (or call it God, Brahman, Jahve if you like) more understandable and tangible for ordinary people, and also for the leaders to use it for their own ends; money, power etc. Heaven and hell are things I regard as constructions made by the clergy in order to control people, but just because the thelogicans are wrong, doesn't mean that a supernatural force doesn't exist.

So there's really no contradiction. One can quite naturally belive in the existance of a soul, a force of sorts and rebirth without acknowledging the existance of the christian god -- after all that's been the case for the vast portion of the planet's religious history.

People believe what they want to believe, and that's fine. But how can you, personally, go around stating that the idea of a creator/God is ludicrous, yet belive that some spirits/souls remain on earth to move candlesticks and look at people from roofs of houses?

Hehe, well I don't belive in all ghost stories (most of them are most likely the result of misunderstandings, lack of sleep, confusion etc) and as I've said I don't oppose the idea of a god (only how most people define and think of it), but the function of the doctrines surrounding religion is (in most cases) to secure the power of a choosen few and keep the people in line, not because they're true.

But on the other hand how can one be certain that it is the souls of people that remain? Perhaps through some glitch in the fabric of space/time people or some part of them can at certain times get stuck there. I'm obviously only speculating since my knowledge of phyisics and similar subjects is quite rudimentary; but what I'm saying is that just because there are ghosts, or strange events related to ghosts, doesn't mean there's an immortal soul. Sure it's the natural conclusion from someone within our culture, but it isn't necessarily so.
 
JayKeeley said:
It is absolutely about sitting on the fence. :tickled: How can it be otherwise? It's very simple:

Q: Do you believe in a God?
Agnostic: I don't know.

Q: Do you not believe in a God?
Agnostic: I don't know.

Q: Well, which one do you believe in then?
Agnostic: I could go either way. I haven't been able to fathom this whole "higher being" thing yet.

If that isn't sitting on the fence, I don't know what is. :loco:
Wow, you sure don't get it yet do you?

Q: Do you believe in a God?
Agnostic: No.

Q: Can you prove that God doesn't exist?
Agnostic: No.
 
Erik said:
Q: Do you believe in a God?
Agnostic: No.

See, I don't agree with that at all. An agnostic would not answer "no", an agnostic would say, "I haven't decided yet".

That's all I'm saying, and that's all I've ever been saying -- that the 1% remote possibility of fantasy becoming reality is too negligble to be consumed with. The shortest route between two points is a straight line, I have no interest in meandering from that.

Now, I am very very tired of this thread. I shall bow out. :tickled:
 
See, I don't agree with that at all. An agnostic would not answer "no", an agnostic would say, "I haven't decided yet".
That just means you don't know what agnosticism is, plain and simple. You can pretend it has another definition than the real one, but it doesn't.
 
Doomcifer said:
If you try and tell a cockroach that he is in New York he will not understand. He cannot. He does not have the capacity. Nor does he need it to live.

A cockroach is aware of us, as a giant shadowy form that means "run". But he can't discern anything beyond that. Who knows, maybe our awareness of what sits above us in the heirarchy of the universe is about the same -we see shadows and that's about it.
dude what if cockroaches are as intelligent as Stephen Hawking, but just lack the ability to convey their intelligence to us?:wave: