Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

micahaphone wrote:

halonachos wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

micahaphone wrote:I've already stated my views on the matter, but just as a little side note on the "do ghosts exist" side of the argument:

-While I'm not trying to prove whether or not you've seen something paranormal, many of the purported "hauntings" of older houses are actually caused by a little bit of caveman left in your brain. Basically, when you hear infrasound (sound with a lower frequency than you can normally hear), caused usually by old pipes or areas of resonance, your body goes into "alert" mode, as if a saber toothed tiger was hunting you. This leads to your body being "paranoid", in a sense, as it will detect threats and anomalies even when there are none, as this little bit of caveman left says "predator nearby. Be on the lookout".

To expand on this: certain frequencies can also vibrate the retina, causing minor visual hallucinations as one tries to interpret junk data indicating movement in the corner of one's eye. Here's a Cracked article for further elaboration.

What about the 'full-body apparitions' that some people see? I wouldn't call seeing an entire person who wasn't actually there a minor hallucination. Things happen and sometimes they can't be explained. Now the spots that people think are ghosts are usually dust or some kind of hallucination and maybe full blown bodies are as well, but little kids saying names that they've never heard before has no bit of survival instinct behind it.

I'd certainly like to see more research into the matter, but unfortunately, right now the only people concerned (as in devoting time and resources for research) with it are weirdos who get their own TV show for using odd filters on their cameras and shooting footage of "was that something? Who knows? Let's look at a blurry rewind!", or the type who you suspect own a few tin foil hats. Damn you, LHC. We don't need to know about the origin of the universe, or what exactly is in an atom, or what happens when you smash stuff together, we need to learn why sometimes some people hear bumps in the night!

There's another Cracked article that talks about a study involving stimulation of certain parts of the brain causing the subject to see and sense the presence of another person in the room, including creating a sensation that said person was behind them, while laying on the floor. I started looking for it when I read his reply, but then got sidetracked and just started reading random Cracked articles when I couldn't find it...

So there is neurological research being done into explaining ghost sightings, they just mostly boil down to "yeah, people hallucinate things like figures or voices sometimes, even if they're neurologically healthy," which isn't nearly interesting/surprising enough to really get mainstream propagation.

Yeah, my Psychology professor pretty much says that since there's a wide spectrum between "crazy" and "sane"(using laymens' terms of course) and he thinks that people that say they've seen ghosts are a little closer to "crazy" than those who haven't.

That said, I prefer to live in a world where ghosts could possibly exist, or at least where there's some sort of phenomena that we perceive as ghosts.

So there is neurological research being done into explaining ghost sightings, they just mostly boil down to "yeah, people hallucinate things like figures or voices sometimes, even if they're neurologically healthy," which isn't nearly interesting/surprising enough to really get mainstream propagation.

Yeah the mind is a funny thing. I mean one of its functions is taking abstract data and forming something that is coherent and relatable. Have you ever caught a glimpse of something and while there was no doubt what you saw (or heard) you find out upon closer inspection that you were totally wrong? (maybe like that huge bug you saw walk across the porch that turned out to be a leaf?)It's a pretty odd feeling. It would not surprise me at all if a large portion of ghosts sitings for example were cases of the mind taking something it only glimpsed and 'jumping' to a relatable conclusion.

Monster Rain wrote:
That said, I prefer to live in a world where ghosts could possibly exist, or at least where there's some sort of phenomena that we perceive as ghosts.

And if said ghosts are real, I imagine they are friendly, and have their own cartoon series.

Fafnir wrote:

Kasrkai wrote:
Most religions (Islam, Hindu, Christian) tend to preach tolerance.

[QUOTE=Leviticus 18:21 -22

And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through [the fire] to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I [am] the LORD. Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

I don't think Stephen hawking's comments were intolerant nor do I think he lacks social skills. He is just speaking his mind about a subject which is difficult to disprove to religious people because their argument is you can't disprove it and it has been used as an established explanation for the afterlife for thousands of years. He simply means that for many people the concept of an afterlife for some people is much more comforting then to face the possibility that there could very well be nothing out there at all. Im personally agnostic in which I don't believe in any religion but I don't count out the possibility of a greater force, no matter how unlikely I think that is. Personally I think the idea of a creator simply devalues the wonders our universe has to offer and the achievements of our species.

Kasrkai wrote:But then again, "Everything in this book is truly stated, but not everything is a true statement."

Haven't heard that one before.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Kasrkai wrote:But then again, "Everything in this book is truly stated, but not everything is a true statement."

Haven't heard that one before.

There is no spoon...

SilverMK2 wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Kasrkai wrote:But then again, "Everything in this book is truly stated, but not everything is a true statement."

Haven't heard that one before.

There is no spoon...

Leviticus 18:21 -22[/QUOTE wrote:
And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through [the fire] to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I [am] the LORD. Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

The fire of Molech was a pagan sacrifical fire where they'd throw unwanted babies. It's one scriptural basis for Christians to be pro-life / anti-abortion

Phototoxin wrote:

Leviticus 18:21 -22[/QUOTE wrote:
And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through [the fire] to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I [am] the LORD. Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

The fire of Molech was a pagan sacrifical fire where they'd throw unwanted babies. It's one scriptural basis for Christians to be pro-life / anti-abortion

Authority? That passage there doesn't say what you claim.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:

Leviticus 18:21 -22: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

Authority? That passage there doesn't say what you claim.

What I am getting from that is if you are male sleeping with another man you can't let the other man steal all the covers like a woman would... And if you are a woman you can't spend all night gossiping with a man.

The previous bit sounds like you can't pleasure yourself into some blokes fire, which is sensible advice really.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:

Leviticus 18:21 -22[/QUOTE wrote:
And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through [the fire] to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I [am] the LORD. Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

The fire of Molech was a pagan sacrifical fire where they'd throw unwanted babies. It's one scriptural basis for Christians to be pro-life / anti-abortion

Authority? That passage there doesn't say what you claim.

he's referencing Eissfeldt's theory... (basically he has no idea what he is talking about and is talking out of his butt...)

frgsinwntr wrote:he's referencing Eissfeldt's theory... (basically he has no idea what he is talking about and is talking out of his butt...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moloch#Eissfeldt.27s_theory:_a_type_of_sacrifice

Link for the lazy.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:

Leviticus 18:21 -22: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

Authority? That passage there doesn't say what you claim.

What I am getting from that is if you are male sleeping with another man you can't let the other man steal all the covers like a woman would... And if you are a woman you can't spend all night gossiping with a man.

The previous bit sounds like you can't pleasure yourself into some blokes fire, which is sensible advice really.

I...think you misquoted me.

And you're messing with my head. Again.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:

Leviticus 18:21 -22[/QUOTE wrote:
And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through [the fire] to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I [am] the LORD. Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

The fire of Molech was a pagan sacrifical fire where they'd throw unwanted babies. It's one scriptural basis for Christians to be pro-life / anti-abortion

Authority? That passage there doesn't say what you claim.

If one assumes that "seed" refers to descendants in a broader sense, rather than literally semen, it makes sense.

However it isn't necessarily a prohibition against abortion, it can be read as a prohibition against sacrificing to rival gods.

Don't read Leviticus, its not like other Bible passages. It's some guy making stuff up so I would rather stick with the plain gospel.

halonachos wrote:Don't read Leviticus, its not like other Bible passages. It's some guy making stuff up so I would rather stick with the plain gospel.

Well, what most people saying "Christians suck!" are really saying is that "Christians who believe in Biblical literalism suck!" so it isn't quite that easy.

halonachos wrote:Don't read Leviticus, its not like other Bible passages. It's some guy making stuff up so I would rather stick with the plain gospel.

This is my problem with interpreting holy texts... Without actually consulting the author how can we determine which parts of the book are supposed to be taken literally, which are allegorical, etc, with any kind of authority? Or even which bits to apply and which to ignore? All the bits that have been taken out over the years (from the very start in some cases) have been removed to further someones earthly agenda. King James Bible for example...

Blackskullandy wrote:Or even which bits to apply and which to ignore?

Which ones do you like?

dogma wrote:

Blackskullandy wrote:Or even which bits to apply and which to ignore?

Which ones do you like?

Revelations is always good for a horror story,

I have a question for all non-beleivers: Why is it that when someone dies, everyone close to them seems to have the same sort of dream of them, always in a happy place and being very content? This sort of thing happens all the time, especially with close family members.

I could see if it was just one or two people, and just once or twice, but this sort of thing happens all the freakin time.....

Its possible that its just a result of some sort of cultural norm. In essence people believe that said loved one went to a happy place, and dream about it because they have strong emotions at the time of passing.

Slarg232 wrote:I have a question for all non-beleivers: Why is it that when someone dies, everyone close to them seems to have the same sort of dream of them, always in a happy place and being very content? This sort of thing happens all the time, especially with close family members.

I could see if it was just one or two people, and just once or twice, but this sort of thing happens all the freakin time.....

I've never heard of everyone having the same dream after another human died. Are you referring to near death experience? Non-believer's is a pretty broad term as not all religions have the same idea of an afterlife, or necessarily believe in one.

dogma wrote:And if said ghosts are real, I imagine they are friendly, and have their own cartoon series.

With an insectoid co-host and extra special guest interviews?

Seriously though, I'm not even talking about the spirits of the departed as "ghosts" maybe just light reflected off of something back in 1876 going around a really weird curve in space and bouncing into somebody's retina.

Monster Rain wrote:
With an insectoid co-host and extra special guest interviews?

I was thinking Casper, though the Space variety is absolutely superior.

I miss Blip.

Monster Rain wrote:
Seriously though, I'm not even talking about the spirits of the departed as "ghosts" maybe just light reflected off of something back in 1876 going around a really weird curve in space and bouncing into somebody's retina.

George Gabriel Stokes?

dogma wrote:George Gabriel Stokes?

Don't even get me started on my pet theory of "If particles are actually waves, maybe all of our brain particle-waves comingling are the basis for Jung's Collective Unconscious what with my neurons firing into yours and whatnot."

Sounds kinky.

Yeah, I like to drink, read weighty scientific and philosophical books and then theorize wildly on the interwebs from time to time.

Monster Rain wrote:Yeah, I like to drink, read weighty scientific and philosophical books and then theorize wildly on the interwebs from time to time.

I'm sure that's what I did in order to make it out of undergrad.