by finallysomepride 151 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
daniel p
There is plenty of proof, but the way you deflect the issue is like this: So you don't have to accept it, you set up a burden of proof that you know will, more than likely, show no paranormal activity at all.
If you think that I'm acting the fool, so be it.
Judge Dread
Dread, saying that Ghost Hunters is legitimate proof is like saying that the Backstreet Boys contributed greatly to classical music. It's bunk.
However, if you can show me the proof, other than that ridiculous-ass show, I'll be willing to take a look at it.
open minded enough for you?
One story retold by Colin Wilson in one of his books was in my eyes very interesting. It was about a house in Britain somewhere, where ghost and poltergeist disturbances had been going on for around 100 years, and the house had been vacant for years in-between outbursts, so different generations of tenants had experienced it. And, in the vacant years, people walking by the house had heard voices and noise from the house when it was in fact empty. As Wilson asks later on, "What are ghosts doing - when NOBODY IS AROUND TO WATCH THEM?"
Friends of mine heard the sound of piano playing and "upper class partying" (you know, polite laughter and calm talking) from the flat beneath them, and also the door bell would ring etc. Then they found out that these sounds accured when the flat below was empty, when the folks living there were away for the night or weekend. They did some research, and found out the mother of the one presently living there, had been a rather famous medium and had stages seancees in that flat 30-40 years earlier. They chose to move.
There is plenty of proof, but the way you deflect the issue is like this: So you don't have to accept it, you set up a burden of proof that you know will, more than likely, show no paranormal activity at all.
LOL - my "burden of proof" is simply any amount of evidence that holds up under scrutiny. Would you take a drug that had not been tested, but just had a bunch of unverifiable claims as to its effectiveness? Would you expect the claimants to provide proof that it worked, or would you just take their words and personal beliefs at face value? Would you then berate others for asking for proof? .... Expect in this case I'm not even asking for absolute. proof.
And of course "I don't have to accept" extraordinary claims without evidence. That's actually a healthy, logical thing to do. The unhealthy, illogical thing is to believe outlandish claims without any objective evidence. Oh, and by the way, personal testimony is not objective evidence. It's valuable evidence, and it has a place in scientific inquiry, but it's source is inherently subjective, and therefore unmeasurable and unrepeatable, because that person's state of mind cannot be accurately replicated, and no one can seperate cleanly the inputs from their environment and the mind that processes those inputs.
It's not unreasonable for me to be skeptical of paranormal activity in the absence of the kind of evidence I mentioned above; its unreasonable to expect people should take every claim at face value.
sooner
I didn't say Ghost Hunters was legitimate proof. I said go with them, OR a group like them, on one of their investigations and see for yourself whether they are committing the greatest hoax in the history of mankind. That way, you can come back here and tell all of us.
danielp
Would you take a drug that had not been tested, but just had a bunch of unverifiable claims as to its effectiveness?We are not talking about drugs.
By the way, personal testimony sends people to prison, every day.
Judge Dread
Would you take a drug that had not been tested, but just had a bunch of unverifiable claims as to its effectiveness?We are not talking about drugs.
No we're not. That was meant to illustrate the same principles. Sometimes this is referred to as an "example."
By the way, personal testimony sends people to prison, every day.
Judge Dread
But we're not talking about prison! lol.... Did I catch you using an example? But seriously, should personal testimony be enough for me to believe in ghosts? Yes or no?
I believe in them because I've experienced their presence several times, and others have mentioned the same kinds of things.
That was meant to illustrate the same principles. Sometimes this is referred to as an "example."
Your illustration made sense to me so we'll give you a "G" and you can move on to the next point of counsel.
We'll give Judge Dread a "W" on comprehension.
W
For people who absolutely do not want to believe, their is no legitimate evidence.
For people who want to believe, there is no legitimate evidence.
...I've seen and heard things that can't be explained,
Exactly. It can't be explained, therefore it does not prove the existence of ghosts, demons or supernatural beings.
I believe in them because I've experienced their presence several times
But can you prove they exist besides the claim that you "experienced" their "presence"?
I think you all are full of shit.
Would that argument stand up in a court of law?
But seriously, should personal testimony be enough for me to believe in ghosts? Yes or no?All right, dp, let me LOL with you.
Anyway, I have found that people are very reluctant to share their "paranormal" experiences, because they are afraid of being ridiculed.
Should you believe my personal testimony? Should you believe any posters on this site who claim to have had this type of experience? Should you believe Loretta Lynn? Should you believe your co-worker? Your neighbor? How the hell should I know?
What I DO know is this: You cannot totally disregard everyone who claims to have seen a ghost, seen something move by itself, etc. Whoever you choose to believe, or disbelieve, is up to you. After all, you were not there when it happened.
Judge Dread
