why we need ghosts

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No..I swapped a faithbased worldview for an evidence based experience of reality. Which is also why I gave up skepticism, another faithbased worldview.

I learned how their much lauded critical thinking was actually a pretext for confirmation bias. The skeptics were merely defending their belief system much as the religious do. I needed more than that. I needed an approach to reality that acknowledged its inherent mystery while honoring the authority of direct experience.

Skepticism is simply the other end of the belief spectrum from religion. It dismisses evidence for an unwarranted faith in scientism as the arbiter of what is real. But I was burned out on that sort of unconditional believing. Instead I looked at the evidence alone, and found myself evolving an approach to reality that is both realistic and relevant.

That faith substitute for me was skepticism and scientism, which is what you use as your precious religion. I dispensed with the need for faith and belief altogther. Now I just let reality be itself without having to know what it's all about. I dwell in the mystery of it, and recognize the limitations of my own mind to grasp it all.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thought bubble

How many in this thread post stuff about ghost?

How many dismiss stuff posted about ghost?

How many keep posting stuff about ghost?

Last question - why?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That's kind of anthropomorphic isn't it? I mean to expect reality to bend it's laws and phenomena to the reasoning of humans, a reasoning it turns out it is laden with all sorts of self-serving assumptions about what is possible and what exists and what doesn't. The sort of reasoning the skeptic wishes to pass off as some absolute arbiter of what is real, based on plausibility instead of evidence, such that his worldview of a rational and predictable world is preserved and defended. Hence the dogmatic certainty of such assumptions as "no ufos" and "no ghosts" and "no esp" even in the face of compelling evidence, and the endless project of debunking every experience of these phenomena as merely mundane accidents or fakery. That's the dogmatic belief system of the skeptic, which assumes in every case what it wants to conclude. Reason over evidence, only in this case a kind of biased reasoning that upholds their faith that mysterious phenomena just don't exist and indeed never will.

 

This is really bad.
Ghosthunting shows on TV are pretty much at the bottom of the credibility scale.

They are not documentaries - they are "Reality TV"*, and they are as reliable as Chad's sincere season-closer marriage proposal to Stacy**.

*Reality TV is an oxymoron
**made up names

 

They're just people spending all night at haunted locations with cameras and EMF detectors. There's really nothing non-credible about it.

 

No. It's a TV show, first and foremost.

 

It's a televised real situation. That's why it's called reality TV. Nothing fake about it.

 

Yup, right up there with Big Brother and 90-Day Fiance.



Allow me to qualify.

If you consider Ghosthunter TV shows to be a credible source of evidence for ghosts, you are welcome to.

The rest of us are painfully aware of just how processed reality TV is. It is not merely the worst possible source of evidence - it is actually misrepresentational. It would more harm than good, were
anyone to take it as more than just fluffy entertainment.

 

I've probably watched hundreds of episodes of these shows. Never in their history of running has anyone come forward in the media declaring any of them to be fake. That's just a hard fact. The evidence is thus reliable and quite extraordinary. But alas, never quite enough for the whining skeptics.

 

The same can be said about Big Brother and 90-Day Fiance. And Wrestling for that matter.

Why would anyone complain about them being fake? No one thinks they're real.


Again, you are welcome to consider them reliable for your purposes. But no one seriously interested in exploring ghost activity is going to take a TV show - a second-hand - and highly-processed account - as anything other than entertainment.

So, believe in it as you want - it's just not acceptable material, here.

 

Right...that'd be the definition of fake.

On the contrary. Millions of regular viewers take the investigations as real and unfaked. That's how they remain on the air over the years. By being authentic and undeceiving. I don't care that you don't believe in them. I've seen enough of them to know they're the real deal. Skeptics just don't want to believe in them because their evidence is so good.

 

Good. We agree.

If no one thinks they shows are real, that certainly explains why no one has ever complained. I doubt Wrestling and 90-day fiance get such complaints either.

You actually do not know that.

So has Wrestling and 90 Day Fiance.

And National Enquirer has built quite an empire on making stuff up. It's entertainment.

All of them have millions of fans.

OK. And that's fine.

It's only a problem when you bring this stuff here, and are surprised that we have a higher bar for credibility. It simply does not qualify.

And it sure doesn't help with your credibility...


You are forearmed, knowing what you're walking (what you have walked into) here.

One does have to wonder why you don't take this to where the bar is set much, much lower.

 

Neither do sporting events, game shows, or the evening news.

Strawman since I've never posted this stuff here before.

Expecting credibility from skeptics is like expecting drug addicts to give you their drugs. I have no expectations in this area whatsoever. That's why I just post the evidence, so that my personal credibility doesn't become an issue.

Why preach to the choir? I prefer informing the ignorant.

 

So you are little different than people who show up at your door to tell you how to enter the Kingdom of Jesus.

 

No - it means they really are ON TV

Not that the stuff they broadcast is real

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Not seen many, but I seem to recall those I have seen, the presenters coach their words carefully to indicate words to the effect "the views expressed are for entertainment purposes and may not represent the views of the network"

declaring any of them to be fake

They also do not comment anything about "we have indepentently verified claims made in the program"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Ooooooo

Right up there with Hilary and deplorables

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Recreation anyone?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!