UK: Belief in ghosts is rising

Fallible · **#141** by **Fallible** » Nov 19, 2019 4:45 pm

ORZIL wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
ORZIL wrote:
good questions.
mediumship proves that spirits interact with matter.
In this debate I can learn a lot about skepticism.
I can abandon these beliefs.
It's going to be a long debate. Are you willing to learn things you don't know yet?

You mean, purported mediumship, don'tcha? Abandon your beliefs unless you can start bending some spoons. Spoooooons!

I can't learn anything from somebody who only knows how to tell big stories, unless its about how stories can be so uplifiting.

I just want to debate whether or not the spirits exist.
if I am wrong, I abandon this belief.
It's just a friendly debate.

This forum has existed for nearly 10 years. You’d have to be a real prannet to think that you’re the first person we’ve ‘debated’ on this topic, and that you have anything to teach us concerning it. I mean your initial showing is poor. Very poor. Yours is the kind of weak flatulence that dissolves into the air almost immediately upon its release. You’re getting replies because people have nothing better to do. Do realise that if nothing else.

Fallible · **#142** by **Fallible** » Nov 19, 2019 4:45 pm

ORZIL · **#143** by **ORZIL** » Nov 19, 2019 4:46 pm

Fallible wrote:
ORZIL wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
ORZIL wrote:for me the cause of the facts is the spirits
the spirits are only the souls of the dead
When you die, you will be a spirit.
Can you convince me that I'm wrong.

Why would I need to convince you that you're wrong?

Not a game I'm interested in. Someone who thinks like that probably also thinks that sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting LALALA is a supreme defense.

What you need to be doing is trying to convince others that you're not delusional.

So where can I find a spirit?

Can I photograph one?

Can I weigh a spirit?

Can I measure one with a ruler?

good questions.

Yes, they are. Let’s see what you do with them.

mediumship proves that spirits interact with matter.

No, you see this is just you asserting your apparent personal view as a fact. You do know that your belief is founded on a famous scam busted decades ago, don’t you?

In this debate I can learn a lot about skepticism.

This isn’t a debate. It’s one individual lost in the 19th century, bringing a chapstick to a gunfight.

I can abandon these beliefs.

If in fact you even hold them.

It's going to be a long debate.

It isn’t, trust me.

Are you willing to learn things you don't know yet?

Always. Always willing to learn from someone equipped to teach. Please direct me to such a person.

why do not you believe it?
what is the explanation of science? :thumbup:

Fallible · **#144** by **Fallible** » Nov 19, 2019 4:53 pm

You may as well ask me why I don’t believe that there are gerbils in France that nocturnally converse in Tuareg on matters of state.

Cito di Pense · **#145** by **Cito di Pense** » Nov 19, 2019 4:55 pm

Fallible wrote:It’s one individual lost in the 19th century, bringing a chapstick to a gunfight.

That's the (lip) Balm of Gilead, I'm guessing.

Spearthrower · **#146** by **Spearthrower** » Nov 19, 2019 4:56 pm

ORZIL wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
So where can I find a spirit?

Can I photograph one?

Can I weigh a spirit?

Can I measure one with a ruler?

good questions.

Ok, so are you going to answer them?

ORZIL wrote:mediumship proves that spirits interact with matter.

No, obviously not as that begs the question. Mediumship is the alleged practice of communing with spirits, ergo it is itself predicated on the existence of spirits and can no further be considered 'proof' than simply asserting that spirits exist.

I am not sure how to communicate some of these things to you unless your English is very good, but your argument is fallacious - it's 'begging the question, or in Latin petitio principii - or assuming the very point you seek to establish.

Also I think it's important we make a clear distinction here. Proof is not relevant to claims or arguments unless it's in a court of law, or in math or formal logic. With respect to epistemology (how we can know things) or ontology (what things exist) you cannot appeal to 'proof', you can only show 'evidence'.

Evidence will make me change my mind. Only evidence will make me change my mind. You will note that my questions above already targeted in on evidence, so let's be clear: evidence, as you will know sharing a Latin language, has the same stem word as 'evident' or clearly, obviously, unarguably there. So even if I can't see something, if it gives off heat that I can measure, then there's something there. If I can't see something, but I can weigh it and it consistently shows the same weight, then there is something there. Obviously, being able to see something is usually sufficient, but of course, we do need to be clear that what we're seeing isn't merely an illusion.

So, something vital to the ensuing discussion is that you realize and appreciate that you asserting something at me is not going to convince me. You can save your time right now as I will not accept any assertion as establishing knowledge or existence. You will need to give me the means to empirically verify your claim for myself. This is not an arduous requirement given that your claim is predicated on you possessing knowledge, and therefore you must have some means to validate your belief, so that belief should be equally amenable to me.

ORZIL wrote:In this debate I can learn a lot about skepticism.

It's not a hard principle - it boils down to: how do you know that?

If you can tell me how you know that, and I can go and perform the same methods and also acquire the same knowledge, then I will be obliged to grant your claim validity.

ORZIL wrote:I can abandon these beliefs.

I would suggest you do so as they almost certainly do not exist independently of other beliefs, and this belief goes onto inform you of other things, so if this belief is false - which I think it must be given all we know of the universe - then it is misleading you.

ORZIL wrote:It's going to be a long debate.

I am not so sure it will be a long debate, although it might be a long exchange. My experience suggests that the debate portion will cease fairly quickly. Happy to be shown wrong though.

ORZIL wrote:Are you willing to learn things you don't know yet?

There would be much point in learning things I already do know, would there? :thumbup:

aufbahrung · **#147** by **aufbahrung** » Nov 19, 2019 4:58 pm

It isn't belief in ghosts on the rise. A ageing demographic means more people are dying and becoming ghosts. There is no such thing as actual ghosts maybe, however like phantom limbs, the bereaved see the deceased often for years after the dead after left the departure lounge.

aufbahrung · **#148** by **aufbahrung** » Nov 19, 2019 4:58 pm

aufbahrung wrote:It isn't belief in ghosts on the rise. A ageing demographic means more people are dying and becoming ghosts. There is no such thing as actual ghosts maybe, however like phantom limbs, the bereaved see the deceased often for years after the dead have left the departure lounge.

Cito di Pense · **#149** by **Cito di Pense** » Nov 19, 2019 5:02 pm

ORZIL wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
ORZIL wrote:
The theme is about the existence or non-existence of spirits.

No, it isn't. To lead the discussion of spirits, try bending a spoon. Spooooooooon! Take a spoon of methylene spirits and wolf it down, then get back to me. From the spirit world, of course.

but I have no mediumship of physical effects.
How did you come to the conclusion that spirits do not exist?
What is your empirical evidence that this is a groundless belief?
if you are correct, I abandon this belief.

I don't give a flying fuck if you abandon your belief or not. Your crackpot obsession is harming you far more than it does me.

Where did I state a conclusion that spirits do not exist? Don't take my silence on the matter as anything more than refusing to play pigeon chess with you.

Spearthrower · **#150** by **Spearthrower** » Nov 19, 2019 5:04 pm

ORZIL wrote:the bible has many contradictions.
but I won't argue about that.

Then at least one of these things can't be true: i) directed by God ii) God is omnipotent iii) God is omniscient.

Given that, wherein remains the reason to believe in Christianity? As the Bible itself has contradictions, and as the Bible claims it was directed by God, it says that God is omnipotent (at least within this universe), and that God is omniscient, then it is either wrong or intentionally deceptive.

ORZIL wrote:The theme is about the existence or non-existence of spirits.

Yes, I've kind of gone past the 'theme' - I'm still waiting for a response to my questions.

Fallible · **#151** by **Fallible** » Nov 19, 2019 5:05 pm

aufbahrung wrote:It isn't belief in ghosts on the rise. A ageing demographic means more people are dying and becoming ghosts. There is no such thing as actual ghosts maybe, however like phantom limbs, the bereaved see the deceased often for years after the dead after left the departure lounge.

Quite right, why bother reading the OP?

Excellent command of the English language, by the way. :roll:

Spearthrower · **#152** by **Spearthrower** » Nov 19, 2019 5:06 pm

ORZIL wrote:but I have no mediumship of physical effects.
How did you come to the conclusion that spirits do not exist?
What is your empirical evidence that this is a groundless belief?
if you are correct, I abandon this belief.

Let's establish another point of order here.

The burden lies with the claimant.

You claim spirits exist.

My position is the null position - until evidence shows they exist, I don't lend any belief to the proposition.

You would expect the same of me if I were to tell you that unicorns exist and then ask you to show me wrong.

What reason is there to believe that spirits exist?

Spearthrower · **#153** by **Spearthrower** » Nov 19, 2019 5:07 pm

ORZIL wrote:
why do not you believe it?
what is the explanation of science?

Do you actually intend to forward any support for your proposition?

ORZIL · **#154** by **ORZIL** » Nov 19, 2019 5:16 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
ORZIL wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
So where can I find a spirit?

Can I photograph one?

Can I weigh a spirit?

Can I measure one with a ruler?

good questions.

Ok, so are you going to answer them?

ORZIL wrote:mediumship proves that spirits interact with matter.

No, obviously not as that begs the question. Mediumship is the alleged practice of communing with spirits, ergo it is itself predicated on the existence of spirits and can no further be considered 'proof' than simply asserting that spirits exist.

I am not sure how to communicate some of these things to you unless your English is very good, but your argument is fallacious - it's 'begging the question, or in Latin petitio principii - or assuming the very point you seek to establish.

Also I think it's important we make a clear distinction here. Proof is not relevant to claims or arguments unless it's in a court of law, or in math or formal logic. With respect to epistemology (how we can know things) or ontology (what things exist) you cannot appeal to 'proof', you can only show 'evidence'.

Evidence will make me change my mind. Only evidence will make me change my mind. You will note that my questions above already targeted in on evidence, so let's be clear: evidence, as you will know sharing a Latin language, has the same stem word as 'evident' or clearly, obviously, unarguably there. So even if I can't see something, if it gives off heat that I can measure, then there's something there. If I can't see something, but I can weigh it and it consistently shows the same weight, then there is something there. Obviously, being able to see something is usually sufficient, but of course, we do need to be clear that what we're seeing isn't merely an illusion.

So, something vital to the ensuing discussion is that you realize and appreciate that you asserting something at me is not going to convince me. You can save your time right now as I will not accept any assertion as establishing knowledge or existence. You will need to give me the means to empirically verify your claim for myself. This is not an arduous requirement given that your claim is predicated on you possessing knowledge, and therefore you must have some means to validate your belief, so that belief should be equally amenable to me.

ORZIL wrote:In this debate I can learn a lot about skepticism.

It's not a hard principle - it boils down to: how do you know that?

If you can tell me how you know that, and I can go and perform the same methods and also acquire the same knowledge, then I will be obliged to grant your claim validity.

ORZIL wrote:I can abandon these beliefs.

I would suggest you do so as they almost certainly do not exist independently of other beliefs, and this belief goes onto inform you of other things, so if this belief is false - which I think it must be given all we know of the universe - then it is misleading you.

ORZIL wrote:It's going to be a long debate.

I am not so sure it will be a long debate, although it might be a long exchange. My experience suggests that the debate portion will cease fairly quickly. Happy to be shown wrong though.

ORZIL wrote:Are you willing to learn things you don't know yet?

There would be much point in learning things I already do know, would there?

@Spearthrower:
the important you. was not hostile against me, despite my belief.
The subject has not been studied, because they have declared it in advance to be a pseudo-science. You cannot have any evidence if you never study the subject. To say there is no evidence in an absence of study is an appeal to ignorance.

This is called abductive inference. It is a weak form of inference where one only finds what one is looking for.

Fallible · **#155** by **Fallible** » Nov 19, 2019 5:21 pm

Spearthrower · **#156** by **Spearthrower** » Nov 19, 2019 5:34 pm

ORZIL wrote:
@Spearthrower:
the important you. was not hostile against me, despite my belief.

There's no reason to be hostile about beliefs unless those beliefs result in actions or behaviors that hurt other people.

ORZIL wrote:The subject has not been studied, because they have declared it in advance to be a pseudo-science.

Actually, this is untrue. There are dozens of journals on topics like parapsychology, near-death studies, psychic research.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Parapsychology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_ ... l_Research
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_o ... th_Studies

I can given you dozens of links if you really want, but I think my point is made: these subjects have been extensively studied to the best that they can be. The label of pseudoscience actually arises because most people do not actually employ scientific method to perform these studies, but rather tend towards belief statements. Research journals like the above which do try to be rigorous, find nothing of merit.

ORZIL wrote:You cannot have any evidence if you never study the subject. To say there is no evidence in an absence of study is an appeal to ignorance.

That's not how this conversation went.

I didn't say 'there is no evidence'.

I clearly asked you to show me evidence.

So no appeals to anything have been made: the onus has been put on you to forward evidence for your proposition.

I am awaiting that evidence and cannot reasonably be expected to be lead into distractions with all these side points when the request I made is perfectly clear, and any debate would be predicated upon your ability to support your claim with evidence otherwise, the null hypothesis has been validated. In debate terms, I would then have "won" - but I am not bothered about that, I am not trying to "win" nor is this a formal debate.

ORZIL wrote:This is called abductive inference. It is a weak form of inference where one only finds what one is looking for.

That is nothing to do with abductive reasoning; abduction is inference to the best explanation, so it tries to arrive at a plausible explanation, but unlike deductive reasoning, does not remotely attempt to verify it. Inductive reasoning, of course, is a generalization - an inference - based on the set of observations.

But I fear we're not getting anywhere, and I think the expectation is quite clear and fair. I have set out what I would need from you to engage in any ensuing discussion.

Can you or can you not provide evidence for your proposition?

ORZIL · **#157** by **ORZIL** » Nov 19, 2019 6:51 pm

@Spearthrower:
has a private message for you.
thanks.

BlackBart · **#158** by **BlackBart** » Nov 19, 2019 8:02 pm

Fallible wrote:
aufbahrung wrote:It isn't belief in ghosts on the rise. A ageing demographic means more people are dying and becoming ghosts. There is no such thing as actual ghosts maybe, however like phantom limbs, the bereaved see the deceased often for years after the dead after left the departure lounge.

Quite right, why bother reading the OP?

Excellent command of the English language, by the way.

Fallible · **#159** by **Fallible** » Nov 19, 2019 8:07 pm

ORZIL wrote:@Spearthrower:
has a private message for you.
thanks.

Why so coy?

LucidFlight · **#160** by **LucidFlight** » Nov 19, 2019 11:22 pm

Fallible wrote:
ORZIL wrote:@Spearthrower:
has a private message for you.
thanks.

Why so coy?

The secrets of nature and reality can only be discussed via private messages. It is known.

UK: Belief in ghosts is rising

Re: UK: Belief in ghosts is rising

Re: UK: Belief in ghosts is rising

Re: UK: Belief in ghosts is rising

Re: UK: Belief in ghosts is rising

Re: UK: Belief in ghosts is rising

Re: UK: Belief in ghosts is rising

Re: UK: Belief in ghosts is rising

Re: UK: Belief in ghosts is rising

Re: UK: Belief in ghosts is rising

Re: UK: Belief in ghosts is rising

Re: UK: Belief in ghosts is rising

Re: UK: Belief in ghosts is rising

Re: UK: Belief in ghosts is rising

Re: UK: Belief in ghosts is rising

Re: UK: Belief in ghosts is rising

Re: UK: Belief in ghosts is rising

Re: UK: Belief in ghosts is rising

Re: UK: Belief in ghosts is rising

Re: UK: Belief in ghosts is rising

Re: UK: Belief in ghosts is rising

Who is online