[Toilet & Bowels]

Originally Posted by hevusa

http://longevity.about.com/od/sleep/a/sleep_driving.htm
enough said, right?

Your inability to comprehend the most simple point is astounding

[floatingslowly]

Originally Posted by Pax Americana

Look, I'm not trying to be a cunt or a jerk or anything, and I really don't think being skeptical of something makes one close-minded. Shit, if I see some real, tangible, provabl
e evidence of the existence of ghosts, I'll be the first person to say, "Holy shit! Ghosts are real! Guess I was wrong." But I'm uncomfortable believing in something when (in my opinion) there is no credible evidence to support it. That's all.

I mean, would you call me a close-minded cunt for saying, "Man, believing in unicorns is kinda dumb." just because there might be someone out there who believes in unicorns?

being a natural skeptic vs. being a definitive naysayer are two different things.

saying "I want more proof" is not the same as saying "no fucking way".

it just seems that certain people thrive on the sense of negative attention that one receives after getting high and typing.

certain people like cunts.

ps: unicrons are real. gtfo my forum.

[Toilet & Bowels]

Originally Posted by Toilet & Bowels

skepticism means suspending judgement until a point has been proven

again

[EVOLghost]

Originally Posted by knox

It's like telling someone back then the earth isn't flat, really.

I;m pretty sure that was a myth...like the fact people actually thought the earth was flat...

[Pax Americana]

Originally Posted by floatingslowly

being a natural skeptic vs. being a definitive naysayer are two different things.

saying "I want more proof" is not the same as saying "no fucking way".

A fair point. I'd like to think I'm a natural skeptic. Like I said, I'm uncomfortable with belief without evidence. I guess I took exception with what seemed to be you equating skepticism with close-mindedness. Maybe you disagree, but I honestly don't think anyone here is really being close-minded.

[Toilet & Bowels]

Originally Posted by Toilet & Bowels

"ghost" .... meaning some kind of unidentified apparition or apparent non-corporeal entity

what's wrong with that as a definition of ghost?

[Toilet & Bowels]

Originally Posted by hevusa

Do share more information about your experience. Where were you? What were you doing at the time? Was there anyone else there that saw it?

Bear in mind this was about 21 years ago.

Standing outside a building in the village of Newport in Essex.
Walking.
I don't know.

[hevusa]

Originally Posted by knox

I think I found a retard-proof kind of "explanation" that is superficial enough for you (btw crack pine was funny because, as far as i know, you do drugs and i don't - so what an amazing reference).

"But what if ghosts are something else? Could it be possible that what we see or experience as a ghost represents a break in the continuum of time? In other words, if we view time as not a linear construct, but rather a wave, or even a loop, could we be looking backwards (or perhaps even forwards) in time when we observe a ghost, or similar phenomena?"

It doesn't really matter how we define something we have no proof for in the first place. It is like asking, "do we really know if dragons could breath fire?". If what humans have been calling "ghost" is a break in the time continuum (Worf and Data will have to weight in on this) then we need evidence of it none the less.

[hevusa]

Originally Posted by Toilet & Bowels

Your inability to comprehend the most simple point is astounding

The point is, no, people do not always know when they have been asleep for a short moment. And they can confuse dreams for reality, especially during food in front of the tele. If you can fall asleep while driving you sure as hell can fall asleep while sitting on the couch, eating dinner, and watching television for a second.

Apparently enough was not said.

[hevusa]

Originally Posted by Murmer99

My point is, who are you to be telling people what they believe in isnt credible? just let people be. you keep grouping all of them together. "believers" arent the only people who do bad things in the world and have a negative impact on us. you act like youre so much smarter than those who believe in god and i think thats bullshit. i dont believe in him myself but that doesnt mean i have to go around generalising people. once again, not everyone who "believes" advocates the things that piss you off, so why continously put them in the same group?

I'm not generalizing. EVERY "believer" has 0% objective evidence behind their "beliefs" or they wouldn't have to believe now would they? They would know. They walk out into the world and influence it everyday for believers and non believers alike with this warped view of reality (like curse words are bad). I don't care if you don't follow "organized religion" (ie don't go to church), if you "believe" you are part of the problem and I urge you to bring more honesty into the world instead.

Who am I? I'm just an honest person that says "I don't know" when something cannot be known instead of making up stupid shit.

[GeneticKiss]

It must be boring to go through life without an imagination, believing in nothing beyond that which can be proven.

hevusa, belief/faith on its own does NOT fuck shit up. Brutally murdering homosexuals because you say an extremely outdated book in the Bible says so fucks shit up. Blowing up cars and everyone unlucky enough to be standing nearby because you think the Quran tells you to fucks shit up. And albeit on a much smaller scale, knocking on people's doors and telling them the world's coming to end soon because free will is a bad thing that's only caused misery and suffering and God will change his mind about humans having it, that fucks shit up. I've met lots of Christians who aren't preachy and Muslims who aren't violent. The enemies are hate, ignorance, and arrogance, not faith and religion on their own.

[hevusa]

Originally Posted by Murmer99

what i meant by generalizing was you acting like every believer advocates the negative effects this has on us. i understand what you mean in a way.. because i have been yelled at by 2 people who were religious before, and i was being yelled at because i said there was no evidence that god exists and they got angry over it. but i have also met people who believe in god who are the opposite, they admit they do not have evidence and they do not know for sure, but if they want to believe then i think they should have every right to as long as they arent shoving it down someone elses throat. like i said, believing and knowing are not the same thing. some people just believe, and some act like they know he exists.

Simply by "believing", instead of holding on to knowledge, they are bringing dishonesty into the world. That has a negative impact on us all. With the age of the internet, where everybody has instant access to information, "non theism" or the lack of belief has become the fastest growing demographic when compared to religious groups. This is REALLY GOOD NEWS for us all.

[hevusa]

Originally Posted by GeneticKiss

The enemies are hate, ignorance, and arrogance, not faith and religion on their own.

Belief = ignorance instead of knowledge

For the record I'm NOT an atheist. I'm agnostic (because I'm an honest person).

[pbradley]

Don't you mean "faith = ignorance instead of knowledge"?

Because, if that is what you mean, you are denying the Aristotelean definition of knowledge, which for most people is the definition of knowledge.

[knox]

Originally Posted by EVOLghost

I;m pretty sure that was a myth...like the fact people actually thought the earth was flat...

No! I don't think so?

[knox]

evidence=

much like female ejaculation - you do not think it's real until it happens to you.

not you you, hevusa, don't try that at home.

[gualbert]

Originally Posted by hevusa

Belief = ignorance instead of knowledge

For the record I'm NOT an atheist. I'm agnostic (because I'm an honest person).

Agnostic: comes from greek gnosis=knowledge, and 'a' means no or none.
You're preaching your own ignorance.

[Genteel Death]

Ghosts are commonly associated with the spirit of a dead person appearing in non-corporeal forms. Appearances by extraterrestrial entitities of various forms would strongly indicate that they are other living beings existing on other planets/galaxies, not deceased bodies revealing themselves through shy manifestations, particularly because their non-corporeal status would suggest that they'd be able to defy the reactions of the people who spot them and make their presence felt much more and umistakingly. I have a hard time believing that a ghost's sole function is that of making an occasional appearance and engage in particularly negative, positive or just useless activity in enviroments that almost always separate them to a large degree from humans. The existence of extraterrestrial life, though, I don't find hard to believe because with so much space and matter existing beyond this planet it's much easier to at least admit without proof that we are not the only ones here.

[hevusa]

Originally Posted by gualbert

Agnostic: comes from greek gnosis=knowledge, and 'a' means no or none.
You're preaching your own ignorance.

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.

[knox]

isn't agnosticism like: I don't know so I won't be annoying people with ultimate truths? If not, let me know, gotta find another ism.