SoulPancake, a site created by Rainn Wilson, asks “life’s big questions” with a forum for people to respond. A question I recently saw was “Can the dead communicate with the living?”
We’re in the 21st century now, and we’re still asking that question? Sheesh. But get a load of these answers from people:
Definitely. After my Dad died, at least two or three times, I smelled his presence really strongly at least four times on four different occasions.
OH YES!!!!! too many freaky things have happened to me personally for me to think otherwise
In my opinion, of couse they can. The follow you around until you tell them to leave. And even then, if their “mission” isn’t completed, they shift themselves into different things, like an animal, or a bird you see often. If ghosts scare you, they will present themselves in a different way. Have you ever thought of someone out of the blue? That is their way of saying hello.
I believe the dead do communicate with us in different ways, but I think that you have to be open to the “communication” in order to recognize what is happening.
Yes. My mother swears that she saw my dead Nana (my mom’s mom) sitting in a chair in her room for months. Finally she told Nana that she forgave her for the horrible way she treated my mothers during her youth. The next night she was gone.
Humans want immortality. So we deceive ourselves into believing in ghosts and ghouls and gods. It gives us hope there is more.
But there’s probably not more. There has never been any evidence a dead person can communicate with a living person. Countless numbers of psyhics and mediums have been shown to be frauds. None have been shown to be legitimate. Yet we still believe, because we want it to be true.
We fool ourselves far too easily.
Shawn Abbott: I have already gave several examples of why Christianity is different you just dont seem... 
Lessica: If God was really going for clarity, he would have waited for the invention of Lojban. He must have... 
Heidi: And before that we had rocks! And we were damned glad to get them! My dad went to school in a... 
1minion: That was going to be my question, Jerdog. Do some good with all that “evil” stuff for a... 
Phil E. Drifter: Schools teach conformity. They teach you to sit down and shut up and be quiet and be... 
Nelly: ditto 
Anthony D Jacques: I love how God saying “Thou Shalt Not Kill” comes off so Do as I say, not as I do. Christians are... 
110 Comments
I disagree with that sentiment, they communicate with us with their deeds. They exist as long as we remember them. Holy power or not, I feel in communication with the dead every time I remember them or utilize a skill they taught me. Their words and deeds echo through time as long as they are known. It is the only true immortality.
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: “Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
`My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!’
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
Then you’re really not talking about the same subject here. We’re talking about the morons who believe in some spiritual present-tense communication (see the web address). Not memories or documentation of them.
I was referring to Daniels comments at the end.
The is truth in that there is existence after life can exist, that we all tap into via stories. A good medium relates a story you want to be true, they do it by interpreting what they know about you and projecting what you want to hear.
Also they are communicating but not via documentation, their lives echo through history, that is communication, that is transcendence of life, is the smell she smelld exist from remembering her father via his scent. A memory, a trigger of communication, a presence felt from the weight of a lesson taught or the memories of the individual overwhelming them, especially in a space they occupied. They choose to assign them to deity but I am fairly certain it is them describing moments of memories overwhelming them and their coming to terms with their loss. I can still remember my great aunt laugh, smile and the gentleness of her hugs, I still miss her, she passed on 6 years ago now. Yet when I am reminded of her or think of her, I feel her existence, reminded of all she did for me. Does this make me believe in heaven, No, does this make me believe in an afterlife or higher power. No. Does this make her not able Communicate with me. She still does. This may be true for others on Soulpancake, your projecting the assumption that they are religious and believe in an afterlife onto them. For all you know some of them could be athiests as well, or hindu or pastafarian, a worshiper of the church of google. You don’t know.
There is no existence, only memory and artifacts.
But what is existence without them, you yourself only exist to me in the frame that my laptop is an artifact, a memory of someone mentioning this sight and the memories I have reading this site. If you were to die and just posted, i would not know you are dead. You would still exist, your presence felt. Your ability to create new thoughts would not, but you would still exist your presence felt. That is the joy of memory. There is existence after death, as long as you are remembered, it is a static one that no longer moves forward, that gets blurred with time, but you never know, like Ozymandias before you, you might exist forever
I guess one important point here, that you are missing, is that communication is considered “the imparting or interchange of thoughts, opinions, or information by speech, writing, or signs.” (source)
There is no interchange with the memories of those who left us. And even the question of “What would my mother/father/aunt/uncle/etc. do?” still is nothing more than a soliloquy.
The dead cannot communicate with us, since their determining neural patterns are gone for good. They only “exist” as neural patterns within ourselves. And these patterns cannot talk to us, since they are our own.
“There is no existence, only memory and artifacts.”
Shakespeare’s Hamlet in a nutshell.
“Definitely. After my Dad died, at least two or three times, I smelled his presence really strongly at least four times on four different occasions.”
This made me laugh. Unlike the rest of the quoted text it also makes perfect sense. Corpses do tend to smell after all.
That person’s comment made no sense at all — “at least TWO or THREE times, I smelled his presence really strongly at least FOUR times on FOUR different occasions.”
Someone seems to be having trouble keeping their story straight.
Yeah, I noticed that but I put it down to exactly that. Murder suspects tend to slip up and reveal things.
That’s what you get if you don’t bury the body. Or would the dead also visit the toilet?
But guys, Jesus clearly communicates with His people all the time!
*Tongue clearly positioned in cheek.*
Pat Sajak & Vanna White have been dead for years.
“We fool ourselves far too easily”
Only those who want to be fooled…and usually so that it can make them feel better.
It is a sad commentary on our species that because we are so painfully aware of our mortality, we delude ourselves into thinking we continue after death. No one wants to die but it can not be avoided. The delusion that we are somehow so special, so unique that we MUST continue after we die is the pinnacle of arrogance.
In the grand scheme of the universe we are nothing but very lucky particles of matter, that fade out faster than the the eye can blink. This whole planet could vanish tomorrow and the universe would not even notice. So much for humanity being “special”.
He has also set eternity in their hearts, yet so that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end.” (Eccles. 3:11).
Man’s hope of immortality is not arrogance as the good Doctor has suggested, but rather man(kinds) very constitution, his being fashioned (originally) in the very image and likeness of the Father and Father’s life is of an eternal (not subject to death & decay) quality or kind. And that life is the very invitation, the heralding and inestimable offer (even gift) in Christ we are presented with while yet entombed in this temporal confine, this body of death.
Only divorce the old from the new in the LIGHT of understanding and see again for the first time, Love’s (true) offer apart from a religious hindrance else we not see at all.
…in your light, we see light. Ps 36:9.
How are you getting on with your new job? Glad to see you have spare moment to post here.
Hello John!
Nice to see you back. But one thing bugs me. You (along I guess most other people on this planet) argue that eternal life is something desirable. Yet if I really think through it, it appears to me to be the most horrible idea I can think of. We’re not talking about another 1,000 years extra, or maybe just another life. No, it’s eternity! There is no end to it, time becomes absolutely meaningless, you can procrastinate all you want (of course not praising god, because that’s your darned duty). There are no “special moments” anymore, since every moment will repeat itself infinitely. Everything that is possible (i.e. that has a probability > 0) will happen infinitely often.
I’m sorry, but to me this sounds just like Hell 2.0(tm).
Besides, since you don’t know your god’s judgment on Day X, you also do not know with which people you’ll end up in eternity. You don’t know his ways, so how can you know that all the people that were nice to you during your lifetime are there, and none of the baddies?!
Again, thinking through the concept of xian heaven just freaks the living sh*t out of me. I’ve got one life to live, and I would never dare to ask for more.
Thx Devy…
In the same way we are challenged to comprehend the original, (before the fall) paradaisical condition and our true essence prior to the distortion (by sin which is death), we are likewise challenged to imagine (true to form) what this heavenly (meaning spiritual), eternal life might be like, it is foreign to us, beyond our limited (physical) mindsets yet somehow many of us (including myself) sense its reality from within. (Eccl 3:11?)
In my own journey, the more I “abide” in the realm of the spirit (within) and divorce myself from what I thought my life was, from who I knew my former (false) self to be, the more I comprehend, living past the realm of appearances as it were by faith. It’s as if we are entombed in darkness grappling to see the true and heavenly from our earthly vantage point, to peer into the unseen realm of the spirit. The kingdom of heaven is truly within and when we are “InChristed” our vision is enLightened, not that we have any light of our own being comparable to moonlight is to sun “(the true) Light that illuminates, gives light to every man”. John 1:9.
May you find your way Devy, walk in the Light.
I don’t know why you are calling apostle Paul a liar as you abide more in the realm of the spirit in your journey.
A John C. sighting! He has returned! He has risen!
@Matthew: Praise the LORD!!!!!oneoneelevenone1… Wait a second…
@John C: You’re most welcome, and you post an interesting answer, for two reasons:
You did not really address any of the issues I put up on my previous post (at least in a way someone who hasn’t found/has lost their belief), but secondly for this:
So, if I don’t get you totally wrong, you are saying that you do not know what the afterlife will be. That is, more to the point, that you have no chance of thinking of it as admirably, pleasant, or otherwise positive, apart from the assumption that your god will see to it that it pleases you for an infinite amount of time.
This might make some sense for someone who believes in such an entity, but from my (our?!) point of view, it is even more frightening. There is no freedom, since your god chooses everything, there is no certainty, since you don’t know anything about it, there is probably no continuity, since our mortal, earthly minds (or souls or whatever) obviously cannot cope with life in heaven (what will the people you meet in heaven be like?), there is still an eternity (a concept that probably is beyond any mortal being’s grasp) to spend. Of course you can always set yourself in a position of “God will just make it all right”, but to me (us?!) that is a leap of faith way to long or high to be acceptable.
To me (me!) that is not Hell 2.0(tm), it’s Hell²(tm).
And returning to the original question: Do you think that the dead can/want to communicate with us in any way?
There are two dead, the yet living and the…dead. The dead had not that life within and the living yet are silent “witnesses”, even a cloud of many witnessess…”therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us” Heb 12:1.
No, they do not “communicate” to the living as we know it. Now those who are in the universal “C”hurch, that heavenly Body (of Christ) are truly One, so they share that One Life (Christ) who is our life, even though they be on the proverbial “other side”, they…live.
Of course, this is a mystery and makes no sense to the natural man/mind. The loftier question is, will there one day (ages hence) be a “reconciliation” of all things (as it was in the pristine), a re-making (behold I make all things new, Rev 21:5) of all men (fallen too) since the dawn of creation/time? Ahh…but again, we are not mindful of what was lost, who we once…were. But in Jesus we see this original “Word’ (intended creation, God man) that beautiful one in the very image and likeness of His (our) Father.
A lofty mystery that Jesus was created? Thank “God” you are not in medieval time.
Oh i so missed your comments, John C.
(Disclaimer: This comment contains no irony, cynicism or sarcasm whatsoever that the postee has knowledge of)
@Devy
I always miss JC’s comments. I scroll right past them. >:D
Are you sure? You’re the authority on spiritual communication. I just figure it’d be some kind of hypocrisy to accept the existence of one and not the other.
Are we in bible school here?
There’s no evidence such a thing is possible. So for all intents and purposes, ‘no’ would be your answer.
Preachy, and, as close as I can tell, irrelevant to the subject matter.
Sock = zing! ;)
“May you find your way Devy, walk in the Light.”
Wow, that rings with such condescendence.
Paraphrase: You are lost because you do not think the same way that I think. You are lacking something that I have – you are inferior because of it. I believe a number of things that are only imagined, never observed, and because you do not believe in them as well, you are lost. I’ll say that this ability to believe in imaginings has the quality of Light – like Socrates and Wisdom. Walk in the Light, if you do not you are lost in the darkness.
Easy, mate. ;)
Besides, I was always more attracted to The Dark Side(tm)!
Mwhahahahahahahahahahahaaaaa *cough*
The Force is strong with you…but you are not a Jedi yet.
Hi, JC! How’s the new job going? Hope you are well!
“”man’s hope of immortality is not arrogance as the good Doctor has suggested, but rather man(kinds) very constitution, his being fashioned (originally) in the very image and likeness of the Father and Father’s life is of an eternal (not subject to death & decay) quality or kind.”"
If that’s so, why did god want to keep Adam and Eve from the Tree of Eternal Life in Eden? Obviously, he created them w/o an eternal nature.
Genesis 3:22 – 24
“Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever. So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.”
Why would god not want humans to have eternal life, yet *then* kill his own son to guarantee it?
Not that I believe any of that claptrap…
how you doing john i hope all is going well in your life.
well bloody put
you sir , are my hero
Daniel, what has made you so sure that there is no continued existence? Is there some information you can share here that the rest of us can use to understand how you’ve come to that conclusion?
You could just click on the about tab at the top which explains the whole thing.
Thanks Matthew – are you talking about Daniel’s bio? I read it when I first found this blog, but don’t remember any specific info about existence after death – but maybe I just wasn’t reading to get that before… I’ll re-read.
Sorry, it probably doesn’t specifically speak to this post. But the same message pertains. Since there is no verifiable evidence of existence after death, there is no reason to believe in it.
Sure, no reason to believe in it if there’s no evidence. But since we can’t prove it doesn’t, why should we shut the door on the possibility? Why make fun of those who think it might? Seems closed-minded to me. I think there’s an awful lot out there that cannot be proven by scientific method… and perhaps those things are the most intriguing to think about.
This is quite a bit contradictory. If there’s no evidence for it, there is no reason to believe in it. Period. But if we would want to consider it as a possibility, then first of all come up with a reasonable explanation how life after death would be possible. Where does the consciousness come from if your brain shows no activity? Where the perception if your body is rotting away?
There is no evidence about Santa, but as it is a magical being, we can’t disprove him. So laughing at the people who believes in Santa would be sooo close-minded
But since we can’t prove it doesn’t, why should we shut the door on the possibility?
You can’t prove a negative about anything. Therefore, to follow this argument to its logical conclusion, everything is possible.
Using the phrase “close minded” implies that no one here has considered that it may be true, or is unwilling to reconsider if new information becomes available. Expressing disbelief isn’t close minded and disagreeing with someone isn’t close minded. Unwillingness to consider new ideas or information is close minded.
Could you name some of these things that cannot be tested by the scientific method?
Nathan, I may have over-stated when I said “an awful lot”. I am referring to things that are based on personal experiences that are not repeatable. Paranormal activity and extraterrestrial life, mostly. People who believe in a plane of existence beyond this one often believe based on something that has happened to them that they can’t explain. The ideas posted here that sightings and feelings could be a way for the brain to express it’s sense of loss, or wanting to hold on to memories by creating images and sensations is an interesting theory I hadn’t heard before. I appreciate your explanation of “closed mindedness”. I do think that some folks here would not consider new ideas if there is not a factual and proveable basis for them – so some here are closed minded. But not all, definitely.
dr.R, I don’t know how the consciousness could continue after the body dies. I am certain that the level of consciousness we understand in this life doesn’t – for reasons you refer to. If the brain is dead, the means of communication and thought processes that are understood by us in life can’t operate. But I don’t know what other forms of communication may be available in another plane of existence. Interesting to think about, but I certainly don’t have the scientific know-how to discuss it with anyone. Just offering my own thoughts.
MrsMarshall – the system won’t let me link to your post above so I am linking to Nathan’s post just above yours.
In order to close one’s mind to an idea, one must first consider the idea. Considering ideas is ubiquitous and therefore usually unimportant, rather it’s the methodology of incorporating extraordinary claims into one’s belief system that is crucial.
A woman claims that her dead mother’s apparition appears in her bedroom for months. On what methodological basis do you or would you believe that this is a factual claim?
Believing more things doesn’t make you more open-minded.
The burden of proof does not fall upon us. You need to provide evidence that there IS life before we have any reason to believe it.
I base this on there being no evidence anyone has ever communicated something after they were dead. If you are aware of evidence in the favor of afterlife existence, I’d be interested, as it would be great if it were true! :)
I think the “proof” is just too difficult to capture in any kind of scientific, repeatable way. If it’s there at all. Plenty of people believe they have had experience with an afterlife – and they aren’t all as goofy as the people in the original post – but definitely, if proof is needed before belief, I can see where you are coming from.
You don’t have to be goofy to miss your deceased loved ones so badly that your mind convinces itself that they are trying to keep in touch with you after they’re dead. The mind does funny things like that all the time, and there’s far more evidence supporting the conclusion that these “visitings” or communications or whatever are nothing more than the human brain’s attempts to deal with the trauma of loss than there is supporting the idea that the dead are really trying to talk to us.
Mrs. Marshall,
If I attach a powerful magnet to your brain, I can make you see some crazy things, including God. This is the kind of evidence that makes people doubt the veracity of anecdotal evidence.
Sure! And emf fields create hallucinatory experiences as well. I certainly don’t believe every story has to be taken on face value.
So, on one hand you have hallucinations that have an unambiguous, natural explanation (magnets, emf, drugs, etc), and on the other hand you have hallucinations that you can’t explain. How do you decide which ones in the latter category are “mere” hallucinations, and which ones are supernatural? Is it more probable that some are natural and some are supernatural, or that they’re all natural?
Good question… and I don’t have an answer to that. I guess it’s impossible to say what probabilities might be, since there is so much subjective opinion involved with anecdotes. I would say you can debunk the things you know – emf fields, drug use, etc… but even then, what things are going on that can’t be known? I don’t know how that could be answered.
I’m all about questions… not a lot of answers. Thanks everyone for not telling me to bug off.
You don’t have to be a doctor of mathematics. You can’t prove that Santa Claus does not exist… does that mean you are required to seriously consider claims about a magic sleigh? It is possible that there are fairies in my garden, but what are the odds? “Virgin birth” is a common element of dozens of Messiah/man-god myths that predate Christianity; is it more likely that Jesus is a unique factual exception, or that his is also a myth? Millions of people worshipped Zeus, but what are the chances he’s hiding on Mount Olympus? A person claims to have seen something that you know — based on all the evidence of observation you’ve accumulated in your life — is not possible; is it more likely that he experienced something impossible, or something unreal?
On the other hand, if you have credible evidence for the existence of fairies, I’m all ears. That would be sweet.
I am also more interested in questions than answers. That’s what’s great about science — no discipline is a more strict enforcer of humility. Doubt is woven into the fabric of the worldview. Science advances by questioning what it thinks it knows. When they don’t know the answer, scientists are the first to say they don’t know the answer. Religion offers certainty. Science offers probability.
I think you will find that all most atheists will try to get you to do is be skeptical.
Sometimes when my wife is outstation for a few days, I kind of felt her presence in the kitchen, sometimes it’s like she is cleaning dishes, sometimes I can smell her cooking. I used to be scared as a christian, but now I enjoy it when it happens, maybe it’s how my heart or my brain longs for her presence.
There is one particular christian person who thought her mother’s spirit was haunting her weeks after her mother’s death, I pity her when her cell group leader shared with me that they cannot cast out her mother’s spirit from her home.
When dealing with believers in ghosts, and most religious people for that matter, I always like to ask them this question: How does the mind survive the death of the brain? It’s amazing to me how few people have thought of the question in those terms.
At first they are not quite sure what I am asking, so I then explain that the brain is a biological, physical entity. Our minds are entirely the products of our brains. Our sensation of the world can be impaired or improved depending on what we eat, how frequently we sleep, or the drugs we take. Severe head trauma can cause us to loose or impair our mental faculties, some times to the point of rendering our entire body immobile. I ask them what evidence do they have that our minds are the product of anything other than our brains? And if they don’t have any, then why do they believe that the mind can survive the death of the brain?
If someone suffering from Alzheimer dies thinking they are five years old, would they magically get back all of their memories? If you were to die right now would you get back the memories that you’ve lost from your childhood? Would you remember what you ate for breakfast 3 years ago? And if you would, where is all of this information stored in the meantime? Why is this information lost only to be recovered unconditionally after death? By what means does the mind survive the death of the body and retain information? If these soul things are real, then like all real things they must be subject to some rules governing their behavior. How do you know what these rules are? What tests can be preformed to verify them? It seems like the whole human race has covincened themselves of the ridiculous notion that after you die, you just keep on living, only in a way that is not observable or testable to those that are actually living.
But really if your part of any of the major religions this is the most important question. Because all main religions that I know of deal with some sort of postmortem existence followed by a reward or a punishment for behavior or beliefs. If the mind doesn’t survive the death of the body, then its not merely a matter of weather or not Jesus died on the cross and you have accepted his salvation. If your mind dies when your body dies then it doesn’t matter if Jesus existed at all because the central premise of Christianity, and indeed all religions, is one of personal immortality. Without that, the rest of it is really inconsequential.
Exactly!
Well said indeed.
If they don’t believe you, we can propose an experiment: we take away their brain, and then we assess how much consciousness there is left.
One of the many things mentioned in The God Delusion is the attractiveness of the idea that your personality will survive your own death. I hadn’t heard it put that way before, and I immediately recognized that it’s absurd.
I’m not sure that it’s that humans *want* immortality, I think it’s just that they can’t actually picture themselves *not* being immortal.
I mean, the problem with imagining yourself not to be is that, in order to imagine something, you have to imagine a point of view…and if you have a point of view, you’re not *not*.
Basically, since in effect the entirety of the universe is inside your head, it’s impossible to eliminate from your imagination of a future universe your head.
I don’t know, but it’s hard for me to really imagine my death. I think religion is an easy way out to that struggle, security or fear.
I’ll just stick to Mark Twain, who is said to have uttered these wonderful words:
I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.
I am afraid of dying, since chances are that it will involve a certain amount of suffering, and who wants to suffer? But death… I’d not go so far as to say that I welcome him when my time is up, but I don’t fear him either.
That point was already made by Seneca, who, amazingly, lived in the same time as JC (not John C, but Jebus, assuming he was an historical figure indeed)
Didn’t know that, thanks for the info (you do not happen to have a source at hand, just in case somebody asks me, you know. Just saying “dr. R. said it,” will probably not convince my interlocutor)
What makes me wonder, though, is how Ol’ Socci could have known that the universe was billions of years old… ;-)
OK, Seneca probably didn’t know or realise the universe was billion of years old. But he did elaborate on the idea that there was nothing before he was born, and nothing after he would die, and therefore no reason to fear the latter. I spend hours translating Seneca at school, but if a first-hand read is not enough for you, there must be loads of stuff you can find on the internet – sorry, no time to look into that now!
Here you go:
(From epistle LIV)
I wonder what Seneca would have thought about torture?
first of all i stumbled unto this site, second i dont care what you think daniel florien. Being how the pagan you are you are worst than ppl who actually believe any supernatural non-scientific things. Here is a list why:
-You can’t mind your own business and let others believe what they want.
-You want to tell others what you believe is true, seriously who are you to tell someone what is and isn’t true? (science has proven it you say? science should be for improving our way of life, not for disproving some beliefs due to a childish way of thought)
-What is the big deal about believing in dead people? (Whoever does isnt causing any harm to you? so why bother?)
You sir, are a selfless, selfish, little prick. Who feels the need to tell others that are wrong and how to live their personal lives. Personally, I could care less, but it seems that someone needs to shut your mouth before someone actually listens to your disgusting posts
First of all, I stumbled upon this post, second, I don’t care what you think Carlos. Being the loudmouth you are, you are worse than the majority of the people on this site. Here is a list why:
-You can’t mind your own business and let others calmly discuss interesting topics.
-Your grammar makes Webster cry. Selfless and selfish are antonyms
-What’s the big deal about having a website to discuss your beliefs? Whoever does this isn’t harming you and isn’t suggesting that you need to stop believing what you want.
You sir, are a spiteful, arrogant little troll who feels the need to tell others how they are evil and how to use their own website. Personally, I could care less, but it seems that someone needs to shut your mouth before you can spread anymore hate.
So… you’re telling me not to tell people they are wrong, as you are telling me I’m wrong.
Have you no sense of irony?
mmm…irony:
http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/lit_terms/irony.html
Must… Resist… the… Urge… to… Feed… the… Troll… *blarghfznghaargh*
Carlos, Internet Tough Guy!
really dude? really? did you not even read your own writing? you want Daniel to stop telling other people what to believe (which he does not do) by telling him what he should believe. the stupidity is so delicious today.
Yet another sad sad case of rectocranial impaction.
By the way, the phrase is “I could NOT care less”. To say that “I could care less” implies that there is a lesser degree of caring to be achieved.
Now go play with the other twatwaffles.
that’s one of my biggest language peeves! “I could care less”… GAH!
Lol, i nvr meant to tell anyone how to act or what to believe, i simply stated how little patience this world has, and guess what? you all just proved my point, getting so angry at some stranger commenting, seriously this tells us how humanity has evolved, still fighting over mindless things, all i meant to say is that we should learn to live with one another, thats all. Anyway you all are exactly right; Mahausniper and xy and roger, and everyone that replied; I should of minded my own business and kept my mouth shut.
PS Thank you for pointing the obvious, i know my grammar and spelling sucks. Gee wiz i didnt know internet was so serious business, now give yourself a pat in the back and feel like you’ve changed the world, yay. I am outta here
“I am outta here”
Let’s hope so.
“I should of minded my own business and kept my mouth shut.”
Truer words were never spoken.
Now those are some comments I can agree with!
at what point was i angry? joy over how pointless your comment was is what i was trying to get across. i love it when people say things that are utterly ridiculous.
and it’s “should HAVE”, not “should OF” GAH AGAIN!!!
And yet you wrote three paragraphs about it and then another paragraph followup with a PS.
You could care less, but your WALLET, no? If not, you can also choose to mind your life or choose to be selfless and discuss the intent of your heart, mind or stand “politely” if you can, here.
Am I alone in finding something astonishing? Daniel has quoted five people who assert that they themselves, or people whom they trusted, experienced a sort of communication from the departed. He then proceeds to ridicule them in about five different ways. But neither he nor a single comment that I’ve noticed actually discusses the claims on their merits. Who are we to declare that what other people tell us of their experience is untrue, or an example of someone fooling himself? The problem with the sort of skepticism we have here is that it is not true to the way most people actually form their beliefs about life. We do not accept only what has been proven scientifically because a lot of things cannot be proven that way at all! The woman who saw her dead mother in the chair for three months cannot prove it. But for her, and for the people who know her and trust her, it was a more convincing experience than anything involving test tubes. One of the people whom Daniel holds up to ridicule says “too many freaky things have happened to me personally”–you are not going to lessen the impact on him of the experiences to which he alludes by declaring that it cannot be proven!
I see this all the time in arguments around sickness and health. Mrs. X tells us that she suffered from a certain ailment until she began eating large quantities of, say, beets, at which point she recovered. She did not pull this out of her hat; eating beets as a remedy for that ailment has been traditional in some tribe or other for centuries. Mr. Y pops up and declares that no scientifically rigourous test has proven anything about the value of beets in curing the ailment. He further recites the death-penalty meriting bromide: anecdotal evidence is worth nothing. Death-penalty meriting (not literally, I don’t support the death penalty, although I am tempted to do so in cases like this) because it is a way of saying to Mrs. X and to people like her: “your experience, Madam, is of no value or interest to me.” Now I think there are two kinds of people in the world between whom communication is very difficult if not impossible. First, there are those who think that the lack of scientific proof for something means that it is of no further interest; then there are those for whom the lived, felt, experiences of men and women, their own and those of others, are more real, and give a more powerful witness, than any experiment. Every experiment proceeds on the assumption that individual humans are interchangable. Take 500 people suffering from the ailment, give them beets, see what happens–but the 500 are different from each other in so many unquantifiable ways!
So to many, many of us, these experiences count. We may well be as skeptical as you. If Mrs. X were to try, after her testimonial, to sell me a decoction of beet for a hundred dollars a month, I would pretty quickly discount the value of her witness. But where you seem to find the five statements which you quote to be self-evidently risible, I do not. By saying that there is no proof, you put an unfair burden on these things, because there is no possible proof the woman can offer for her experience of seeing her late mother. It is as absurd to demand proof here as it would be if I said “I have read what you have to say about vaccinations, but I still do not believe it because it has not moved my soul.” The point is that the whole side of life where things cannot be proved, and where these movements take place, is one which you discount and regard as being of no importance.
By the way, when I said that no actual critical discussion of the five statements had taken place, the exception is that the fairly minor inconsistency–the movement from two or three times to four times–was held up to extended ridicule. I guess it is far easier to laugh at the obviously wrong than to engage meaningfully with things which challenge our world-view!
@Christopher
This is due to the fact that there are no merits to their claims. There is no evidence anywhere that such things exist, much less anything that points to the possiblity of them existing.
Who are you to declare that Daniel is wrong in declaring them wrong? Don’t be asinine.
The problem with your statement is that we don’t care about unreasonable beliefs about life. In fact, people with these ideas about seeing ghosts or talking with a god deserve to be mocked until they can find some proof of their outrageous claims.
You’re the authority on what can and cannot be proven? Have you been to the future? Do you know for sure it cannot be proven?
The woman who saw her dead mother in the chair either lied, or has serious psychological issues.
We call these people ‘idiots’.
I doubt we’re here to educate those who are so caught up in their delusions that they cannot differentiate between fantasy and reality.
~~~
Your second paragraph is full of small-minded declarations.
The beet-eating woman could have easily convinced herself that the beets would cure her. The fact that she recovered was probably due to something called the ‘placebo effect’. You should really look this up before making ignorant statements. Might I also recommend you google ‘reasonable experimental conditions’.
~~~
And to many of us, we hope you eat beets next time you have a sore throat or a fever. It won’t happen, because you will go to the doctor. The doctor who uses those experiments you feel are inadequate.
Maybe you should ask your neighbors what they feel would be best for you!
~~
I’m not even going to continue with this. There is so much wrong with every sentence you’ve written that I cannot believe you have enough intelligence to understand why you are wrong.
Do some independent research about scientific experiments and ghosts.
Come back when you have something worthwhile to talk about.
Nzo,
You win the prize for the most hostile and mean-spirited writing from one person to another that I’ve seen in a very long time! It’s good to see that even atheism has its inquisitors!
I said “who are we to say that what the woman describes about her experience is false?” and you reply “who are you to say that Daniel is wrong about the woman? Don’t be asinine.” Now I’ve read Zhuangzi too, but it doesn’t work here. In fact this is one of the least logical arguments ever made. A woman says something about herself and an experience that she had. Daniel, who does not know her, and did not witness the experience, says she is wrong in talking about her own experience; that he knows, essentially, more about her experience than she does herself. All I say is that we cannot have this level of certainty. There is no equivalence here. Someone is indeed being asinine here, but it is not me.
Everything you say about proof is circular and contradictory. The fact is, and I should think this is clear, that certain statements, certain realms of experience, simply are not susceptible to proof. A statement such as “I felt a ghostly presence beside me as I entered the room” simply cannot be proven or disproven according to your idea of proof. Neither, for that matter, can most of the things we say about our emotions. Now we have two choices; we can simply dismiss these things, or we can take them into account. But an epistomology that begins by dismissing all but a pretty narrow field of human experience strikes me as a fairly unsatisfying one. Furthermore, much of what people regard as proof is simply the observation of correlative material phenomena. For example, if the neuroscientist observes certain movements in the brain which correspond to falling in love or the experience of deja vu, some would assume that these material movements “cause” those non-material states; others would simply see a material correlative to an essentially immaterial movement. What I see in your writing is an intense hostility towards vast swathes of the human experience. You find that demanding proof of the unprovable is an easy way to dismiss things, but it is simply a red herring. Too many people report experiences of this sort–numinous or other-worldly experiences. Who knows what’s going on? They may well be lying–some of them certainly are–and no doubt some of them are mentally ill. But many show no signs of either. So instead of calling them outrageous and unreasonable and worthy of mockery and being called idiots, I accept that there are “more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy”. It’s called humility, and basic respect for others whose experience is different from my own.
But why am I even arguing with someone who has essentially–to judge from the tone of your writing–lobotomized himself to such an extent? That is, cut from his intellect everything outside of an exceedingly narrow and petty circle of dogma? You do not believe in religion and I do not believe in reincarnation, but if I did I would swear that you were a 16th Century Calvinist on fire with hatred for everyone who differs from himself on any topic! Only the dogma is different; in your case I would say it’s a shade more narrow. You even heap derision on people who hold basic nutrition in higher esteem than you do? I mean, I didn’t ask you to accept something nebulous like homeopathy or ayurvedic medicine–I deliberately used an example from the field where I thought we could all agree there might be some merit (hint–vegetables are generally accepted to contain vitamins, which are generally regarded as having some influence upon our health) and you still leap upon it as if it were voodoo.
Well, I’ve seen all I care to of this neck of the online woods, but if anyone asks me whether there are still any real fire-breathing puritans around, I’ll know where to send him!
do visual and auditory hallucinations count as being real? sure, they produce an actual experience in an individual, but are they real? would you listen to someone that said they say a ghost if they were in an institution as opposed to a church or somewhere else you find acceptable?
most of the problem with this whole argument is finding the definition of real. it differs for everyone, so there will never be a true end to this conversation.
Most drug users even know the difference between a hallucination and reality.
They say something along the lines of, “dude, I was trippin’ balls and I saw GOD”.
What deficiency do people have to possess to not know what a coke addict knows?
Actually, I think people who have used hallucinogenic drugs are more appreciative of the fact that you can experience things that aren’t real.
I think it depends on how you see the world to begin with. I have a friend who is on the one hand an atheist, and always claims to be a sceptic (inaccurately, as will shortly become apparent), and yet on the other insists that under the influence of hallucinogens she is able to pick up on the ‘energy’ between people much more easily, and that on walking into a room she can feel the ‘energy’ of a conversation. I’m pretty sure that what’s she’s referring to is a heightened awareness of body language and tone of conversation, since that appears to be a fairly common experience, but no amount of evidence would ever convince her that there is no such thing as actual, tangible ‘energies’ between people. She believes in these things anyway, and hallucinogens have only served to reinforce this belief, unfortunately.
Mind you, it’s a perfect example of how people pick and choose the ‘evidence’ they want – I very much doubt she’d claim that there really were paisley patterns on the ceiling, or that walls breathe, or that people’s bone structure hovers translucently above their skin, or any number of other things that people see while tripping balls – but when it’s something she believes in, well, the acid is heightening her senses, right?
Worse than that, I’ve actually heard her refer to these experiences as proof that ‘energies’ exist when talking to another believer – who casually accepted this as proof as well! Just goes to show, you get credulity and lack of critical thinking in every walk of life, and cognitive dissonance is surprisingly easy to live with for many people. I have made the odd attempt to gently explain why it’s irrational and downright disingenuous to loudly profess you’re a sceptic, and a rationalist when it comes to god or gods – yet show no critical thinking at all when it comes to whatever your personal supernatural kink is; but well, what’s the point, really? When a person says “I don’t want to know how the world really works, I prefer my version,” – an actual quote, I’m afraid – what can you do?
Christopher- people have been concerned about the faultiness of sense experince for 2500 years. Read some Plato.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato/
See section 1: Plato’s central doctrines.
Oh, while you’re at it, check out Aristotle:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-psychology/#6
“We do not accept only what has been proven scientifically because a lot of things cannot be proven that way at all!”
A lot of non-existing things can’t be proven scientifically as real.
Can you give us any example of a real, existing thing that can’t be proven scientifically?
That’s the problem with anecdotes…there is no way for us to have access to the information involved in the event…so we can’t test them, verify them, or falsify them.
You can see and hear and smell and touch and taste things that aren’t real. There is not a strong enough argument about how realistic a personal experience was that overcomes this objection.
A woman says her dead mother sat in a chair for months and you accept this as actually happening on what grounds? What is your threshold for evidence?
Show one ridicule from Daniel’s article.
This is written to Christopher.
people should not confuse memories of their dead loved ones with ghosts. When a soul dies, it goes to somewhere other than earth. Any manifestation encountered can be attributed to demons. They can disguise themselves as _________ (in other words: whoever you are seeking).
Aliens, loved ones, Mother Mary, etc.
Wade, there’s no such thing as demons. Mental illness or mental duress, yes, but no demons. Our brains do not perfectly reflect “reality.” Our senses deceive us from time to time and our brains misfire, creating illusions of things. Even our logic is off sometimes. This is why the scientific method is so powerful. It allows repetition and collaboration that takes the mystery/confusion out if individual experience.
When demons invade us, where exactly are they? Are they setting up house in our nose or are they jumping around between amygdala neurons or what?
so I agree with this post.
So you also disagree with the passage in 1 Kings where Saul consults a medium and talks to Samuel from the dead? Because if that is true, then it is possible to talk to dead people through mediums, which is why it is forbidden numerous times throughout the Bible.
Of course I think the story is ridiculous, but I’m surprised that you would attribute that to demons instead of divination.
Isn’t it amazing how Christians can rationalize the myriad bits of nonsense and superstitious woo presented in their holy text?
I dont disagree with any passage. We are not to consult with diviners, or sorcerers. This is all demonic in nature. Saul wasn’t acting according to God’s will in this passage.
So you think Saul wasn’t talking to a dead Samuel, but rather a demon? That would be consistent with what you said, but I don’t remember anything in that passage that says or implies that.
Hell, I heard my dear departed cat meow for several days after I had to put her down. I’m sure my synapses were still firing in that part of my brain because I’d heard it for 18 years daily.
Just because we don’t have an explanation for something, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have an explanation. We lowly humans just haven’t evolved enough yet to figure it out through the right testing methods.
Just think how far we’ve come in just a couple hundred years.
I’d have been burned at the stake for saying that in the not so distant past
Oh yeah, it’s been three years since my cat died, and we’ve since acquired a successor – and yet every so often I’ll ’see’ my old Lulu out of the corner of my eye, streaking past me on the stairs. She used to do it with such regularity and speed that my brain just expects to see a small brown shadow zipping past my peripheral vision when I’m on the stairs, and interprets anything similar as her. Not to mention that when my pet rat finally succumbed to one of the plethora of lethal diseases available to rodents, for weeks afterward I ‘heard’ the sound of her licking her ball valve water bottle, or rearranging the sawdust in her cage.
And amen to “Just because we don’t have an explanation for something, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have an explanation.” Everything has an explanation eventually, it’s just a matter of finding it.
When my dogs are at the kennel and I can’t get them back for a day or so, I sometimes see my black lab from the corner of my eye. And always in places she usually hangs out. I know it’s nothing, but my mind expects them to be there and so I see it.
“”My mother…saw my dead Nana.. in her room for months…she told Nana that she forgave her for the horrible way she treated my mothers during her youth. The next night she was gone.”"
A perfect example of fulfilling your own wish. She wanted her mother to be sorry, wanted closure, and once she had the problem settled in her own mind, she stopped ’seeing’ Nana.
Excellent point.