Paranormal Photography

Status
Not open for further replies.
I never said you were closed minded, runnah. I think I've been respectful to your views, even if I disagree.

The above photo doesn't resemble the photos I've seen that could be construed (that's a good word) as spirit orbs.
 
Question...do u believe in ghosts in general or are we more debating the "methods" as to how to prove their existence?

I believe that we have a soul (but I also believe that's something that cannot be proven - it just has to be taken on faith), but I'm not convinced on ghosts. I mean, I can see the argument that ghosts are "trapped souls" or whatever, but I don't buy that.

(There is clearly "something" other than evolution that separates us from apes, I'll call it the presence of a soul.)
 
There is clearly "something" other than evolution that separates us from apes, I'll call it the presence of a soul.

Yes... we developed a much keener sense of reason and the ability to survive based on our wits. Apes developed a stronger senses and a more muscular body and the ability to survive by giving their opponents a serious beating.

Apart from that, it's been shown that the "feelings" aspect of animals isn't so unlike us. They can ridicule each other, they can feel victimized, they can mourn loss, etc. Apart from the fact that most other animals wouldn't exactly fair very well against humans in a game of wits, we wouldn't fair very well in almost any other category besides wits.

Usually in science we can find a way to derive the presence of something even if we cannot see it or touch it. We humans could "derive" that the world was round long before we could circumnavigate it or fly above it. We literally derived the existence of the Higgs field and the Higgs Boson (the "God" particle) for more than 50 years before we could detect the Higgs particle. We "derived" the presence of dark matter even though, by definition, it's impossible to interact with it electromagnetically. (We primarily interact with everything in our physical world electromagnetically.

The reason we don't fall through our chairs when we sit down is because the atoms that make up our bodies and clothing are interacting with the atoms that make up the chair. But, to quote the late Carl Sagan, “Atoms are mainly empty space. Matter is composed chiefly of nothing.” In other words, we should fall through the chair. It's only the electromagnetic force that makes it possible to sit, without falling through. Our atoms literally levitate above the atoms of the chair.

In a poetic sense, we can "look into the soul" and "touch a person's heart". But those are beautiful and poetic metaphors. We don't _really_ see souls. We mainly ascribe our sense of self-awareness (some animals are self-aware), feelings, and emotions as being part of the soul. But we can prove other animals have these traits as well -- but seem less willing to concede that they have a soul.

Some time back we got into a HUGE debate about whether "Pluto" was actually a "planet" vs. something else. The break-down, it seemed, was due to the fact that the word planet literally means "wanderer" or "wandering star". They were always "planets" even when we had never seen them through a telescope and realized that they were, in fact, other worlds orbiting our sun just as we are. This discovery never caused us to coin a new word for them or redefine them. We lacked an actual definition because every "just knew" what a planet was. The next thing we know, an official definition is declared; Pluto doesn't qualify; and school children everywhere think Neil DeGrass Tyson is a "meanie" who hates poor Pluto.

I rather suspect something similar is going on with the "soul". Nobody ever really "defined" it. We can't study it. We banter about the term as though everyone knows and agrees what the word means.

You can look it up in the dictionary, but the definition is loaded with words that do not apply uniquely to humans or notions which are completely unverifiable (and, frankly, highly unlikely). In other words... it is entirely possible that it's all a big load of hooey.

I don't take much on "faith". Faith is, tragically, something that has been shown time and time again to be that thing which holds us back. It's estimated that the technology and achievements of today are probably at least 1500 years behind schedule -- due to hostilities of faith and religious institutions toward those who made any attempt to research or share scientific learning.
 
I don't take much on "faith". Faith is, tragically, something that has been shown time and time again to be that thing which holds us back. It's estimated that the technology and achievements of today are probably at least 1500 years behind schedule -- due to hostilities of faith and religious institutions toward those who made any attempt to research or share scientific learning.

Not to mention socially behind schedule.

But it just goes to show that we are just all dumb primal animals that learned how to make really good tools.
 
But it just goes to show that we are just all dumb primal animals that learned how to make really good tools.

Fortunately... among the tools we learned to make are cameras that aren't half-bad! ;)
 
Question...do u believe in ghosts in general or are we more debating the "methods" as to how to prove their existence?

I believe that we have a soul (but I also believe that's something that cannot be proven - it just has to be taken on faith)

(There is clearly "something" other than evolution that separates us from apes, I'll call it the presence of a soul.)

I like this.
 
Yeah, I somewhat agree, with the caveat that the hostilities come more from organized "religions" than mere faith and belief systems. Good points!
There is clearly "something" other than evolution that separates us from apes, I'll call it the presence of a soul.

Yes... we developed a much keener sense of reason and the ability to survive based on our wits. Apes developed a stronger senses and a more muscular body and the ability to survive by giving their opponents a serious beating.

Apart from that, it's been shown that the "feelings" aspect of animals isn't so unlike us. They can ridicule each other, they can feel victimized, they can mourn loss, etc. Apart from the fact that most other animals wouldn't exactly fair very well against humans in a game of wits, we wouldn't fair very well in almost any other category besides wits.

Usually in science we can find a way to derive the presence of something even if we cannot see it or touch it. We humans could "derive" that the world was round long before we could circumnavigate it or fly above it. We literally derived the existence of the Higgs field and the Higgs Boson (the "God" particle) for more than 50 years before we could detect the Higgs particle. We "derived" the presence of dark matter even though, by definition, it's impossible to interact with it electromagnetically. (We primarily interact with everything in our physical world electromagnetically.

The reason we don't fall through our chairs when we sit down is because the atoms that make up our bodies and clothing are interacting with the atoms that make up the chair. But, to quote the late Carl Sagan, “Atoms are mainly empty space. Matter is composed chiefly of nothing.” In other words, we should fall through the chair. It's only the electromagnetic force that makes it possible to sit, without falling through. Our atoms literally levitate above the atoms of the chair.

In a poetic sense, we can "look into the soul" and "touch a person's heart". But those are beautiful and poetic metaphors. We don't _really_ see souls. We mainly ascribe our sense of self-awareness (some animals are self-aware), feelings, and emotions as being part of the soul. But we can prove other animals have these traits as well -- but seem less willing to concede that they have a soul.

Some time back we got into a HUGE debate about whether "Pluto" was actually a "planet" vs. something else. The break-down, it seemed, was due to the fact that the word planet literally means "wanderer" or "wandering star". They were always "planets" even when we had never seen them through a telescope and realized that they were, in fact, other worlds orbiting our sun just as we are. This discovery never caused us to coin a new word for them or redefine them. We lacked an actual definition because every "just knew" what a planet was. The next thing we know, an official definition is declared; Pluto doesn't qualify; and school children everywhere think Neil DeGrass Tyson is a "meanie" who hates poor Pluto.

I rather suspect something similar is going on with the "soul". Nobody ever really "defined" it. We can't study it. We banter about the term as though everyone knows and agrees what the word means.

You can look it up in the dictionary, but the definition is loaded with words that do not apply uniquely to humans or notions which are completely unverifiable (and, frankly, highly unlikely). In other words... it is entirely possible that it's all a big load of hooey.

I don't take much on "faith". Faith is, tragically, something that has been shown time and time again to be that thing which holds us back. It's estimated that the technology and achievements of today are probably at least 1500 years behind schedule -- due to hostilities of faith and religious institutions toward those who made any attempt to research or share scientific learning.
 
But it just goes to show that we are just all dumb primal animals that learned how to make really good tools.

Fortunately... among the tools we learned to make are cameras that aren't half-bad! ;)

True it's not all bad. Some of our culture's best art has been created in response to religion/war/politics.
 
Yeah, "religion", as an institution, I don't quite like. But I don't know if it's fair to say that it has held back progress... Really, though, I don't see how we could even know - let alone get it to such a specific figure as 1500 years "behind schedule".
 
But I don't know if it's fair to say that it has held back progress... Really, though, I don't see how we could even know - let alone get it to such a specific figure as 1500 years "behind schedule".

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAH

Have you ever read a history book?
 
What do we define as progress though? Gandhi believed that industrialization would be the downfall of man. He was a man of faith and brought a lot of progress to India. So, I hesitate to make sweeping generalizations when it comes to people of faith.
 
What do we define as progress though? Gandhi believed that industrialization would be the downfall of man. He was a man of faith and brought a lot of progress to India. So, I hesitate to make sweeping generalizations when it comes to people of faith.

Almost Every major war ever has been caused by religious conflict. Just sayin'.
 
Also

Aye be tea elle
 
o hey tyler said:
Almost Every major war ever has been caused by religious conflict. Just sayin'.

Sorry, but that is just not the case. Political disagreement, and economic advancement, and the sheer desire for new territory, and the land and resources that new territory brings with it have been the root causes of multiple major wars. Attributing the cause of "almost every major war" to religious conflict is pretty much a grand overreach, and is simply not borne out by history.

Oh, and, "I see dead people." Paranoia, paranormal, Paranorman [the movie], paratrooper.
 
But I don't know if it's fair to say that it has held back progress... Really, though, I don't see how we could even know - let alone get it to such a specific figure as 1500 years "behind schedule".

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAH

Have you ever read a history book?

I've read quite a few history books, apparently different ones than you though.

How do you even calculate "where we should be by now"? What civilization are we being measured against?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top