Are There Ghosts?
Ghost stories exist in every culture, primitive or not. Its hard to ignore, it seems to be a fact of life, if you can stand the pun..
Quote: EvenBobDon Imus and his wife have run a ranch in NM for terminally ill kids with cancer for 20 years. It operates spring thru fall. In late 2009 a little 9 year old girl had numerous operations on the ranch and died in the fall. That winter they had flood damage and in March of last year had extensive repair work done by a private contractor. The contractor told Imus's wife he thought there were no children on the ranch in March. When she said there weren't, he described perfectly the girl all his men had seen in rooms and in the hallways; it was the little girl who had died in the fall. Probably the most believable story I've ever heard about the existence of ghosts. Poor little kid..
Ghost stories exist in every culture, primitive or not. Its hard to ignore, it seems to be a fact of life, if you can stand the pun..
Just about every culture has fairy and witch and dragon stories too. Not to mention religion.
People like MKL don't even believe they themselves were born, and they could never explain their own existence because in and of itself, it makes no sense. They were not "there" to witness it and there is no memory of it ever happening, so how could it possibly be? To believe in what others tell them would be the same as believing what others have documented in writings about the miracles performed by Jesus.
Quote: EvenBobProbably the most believable story I've ever heard about the existence of ghosts. Poor little kid..
I am not totally skeptical about ghosts, but I can't help but notice that this is the classic way to "tell a ghost story": you assert that it is true and act like you believe it. My mother was good at telling ghost stories, and she always started one with "now this is a true story!"
If you fact checked this, you might find the Imuses would say it is not factual and perhaps the story started in some sort of lame way. What's the source btw?
Finally, I have had it up to here with the proliferation of the pseudo-scienctific paranormal programs on cable tv. Disgusting scams.
He claims late one night the elevator opened, suddenly, and a woman stepped out. He asked her what floor she'd come down from. The woman ignored him and walked through the closed glass door into the parking lot. Of course he went after her and of course she wasn't there.
Great story.
But we often work late. It's not unusual for us to work til 3 am, and no unheard of much later. Most notably the office elevator is set so it returns to the ground floor after every trip upstairs. At the time we often sent someone, usually me, to fetch dinner around midnight or 1 am. Often I'd walk in and see the security man dozing at his post. It's also not uncommon for us to go to the ground floor for office supplies.
So what's more likely? He saw a ghost (using the elevator no less), or he was half asleep, the elevator came down and opened as it's common, and in a semi-conscious state he imagined, or dreamed, seeing a woman walk through a closed glass door? I vote for the latter. When I doze off in palces where I shouldn't, such as meetings, I often have dreams about the place I'm in.
Now, he siad this happened one night we weren't working late. I believe that. But there's an office in the second floor that works 24/7, with two or three people staying the whole night every night. They, too, use the elevator. Often to get to the fourth floor terrace, but if they do the elevator eventually goes automatically, and empty, to the ground floor.
Quote: NareedI heard a really good ghost story from the security man downstairs at the office.
So what's more likely? He saw a ghost (using the elevator no less), or he was half asleep, the elevator came down and opened as it's common, and in a semi-conscious state he imagined, or dreamed, seeing a woman walk through a closed glass door? I vote for the latter. When I doze off in palces where I shouldn't, such as meetings, I often have dreams about the place I'm in.
This seems right on. A lot of the stories you hear took place late at night or the subject was awakened. The sleep deprived brain is the equivalent of an acid trip.
Something else I wonder is why you never hear of the ghosts of animals or pets? Is this evidence ghost stories are the result of a human being's self awareness/self importance or is it because only human's have spirits capable of such things?
Quote: JerryLoganMaybe it was the Hand of God trying in his own way to get SOME people to wake up without messing with free will.
Let's hope he doesn't start quoting the bible!
Quote: EvenBob
Ghost stories exist in every culture, primitive or not. Its hard to ignore, it seems to be a fact of life, if you can stand the pun..[/q
It's extremely easy for me too ignore.
Quote: clarkacalSomething else I wonder is why you never hear of the ghosts of animals or pets? Is this evidence ghost stories are the result of a human being's self awareness/self importance or is it because only human's have spirits capable of such things?
Good question. It could be that most peole regard animals as subhuman, which they are, and lacking a soul. Therefore no animal ghosts. I wonder if Egyptians saw the ghosts of cats?
Also many ghost stories involve whispers, particularly of names, or moaning. Again, things that animals don't do.
Quote: dmLet's hope he doesn't start quoting the bible!
Yeah. Like our country's leaders did the other night in Tucson. Where were the 1.6%ers then?
Quote: dmLet's hope he doesn't start quoting the bible!
Oh, no, let's hope he does. There's nothing like a book of allegorical poetry and fables written by dozens of people over a period of thousands of years, and translated through at least ten languages even before 1 A.D., to prove something logically.
The Bible has been used to justify slavery, genocide, mistreatment of "others", and fun things like stoning people to death. I'd be enchanted to see what portions of the Bible Jerry would choose to justify his argument that ghosts are real.
Quote: mkl654321Oh, no, let's hope he does. There's nothing like a book of allegorical poetry and fables written by dozens of people over a period of thousands of years, and translated through at least ten languages even before 1 A.D., to prove something logically.
The Bible has been used to justify slavery, genocide, mistreatment of "others", and fun things like stoning people to death. I'd be enchanted to see what portions of the Bible Jerry would choose to justify his argument that ghosts are real.
That's the spirit! When you're taking a beating all across the forum like no other, do your best to deflect the issues and minimalize the damage! It's like watching the water boy being taken out to the woodshed again. (oops! RS used that word in the past didn't he?!)
a) Ghost exists the world over.
b) The human propensity to see "ghosts" is the same the world over.
I'd go for b, myself. I've not proved either is true, but both are possible hypotheses.
Quote: thecesspitI suspect ghost stories are so widely prevalent across all cultures because we really aren't so different in the way we are wired between the Great White North and Burkino Faso. Humans are humans, and how we react to outside stimulus is going to be very similar. So I'd give two possible conclusions :
a) Ghost exists the world over.
b) The human propensity to see "ghosts" is the same the world over.
I'd go for b, myself. I've not proved either is true, but both are possible hypotheses.
Occam's Razor would suggest...
Ghost stories in Europe, by the way, became much more prevalent wherever and whenever people started building and living in houses made by post-and-beam construction, and/or used large timbers and roof trusses. The stories were particularly rampant during times of the year when there were large temperature variations between night and day. Of course, those creaking beams COULD have been the ghost of Grandpa....
Quote: mkl654321Oh, no, let's hope he does. There's nothing like a book of allegorical poetry and fables written by dozens of people over a period of thousands of years, and translated through at least ten languages even before 1 A.D., to prove something logically.
The Bible has been used to justify slavery, genocide, mistreatment of "others", and fun things like stoning people to death. I'd be enchanted to see what portions of the Bible Jerry would choose to justify his argument that ghosts are real.
I believe the world is better off with the Bible than without whether it is the truth or not. Yes wars and death have resulted from it but they were there before it and still would be here if it never existed, it would just be over a magical lake or something. The bible has inspired mankind to innovate architecturally, artistically, industrially, etc. far beyond what simple necessity would have pushed us to. Where it starts to get shaky for me is that the authors proclaim themselves "the chosen ones." Come on now.
Quote: clarkacalI believe the world is better off with the Bible than without whether it is the truth or not. Yes wars and death have resulted from it but they were there before it and still would be here if it never existed, it would just be over a magical lake or something. The bible has inspired mankind to innovate architecturally, artistically, industrially, etc. far beyond what simple necessity would have pushed us to. Where it starts to get shaky for me is that the authors proclaim themselves "the chosen ones." Come on now.
Huh? I'm a "chosen one" and I can prove it. Just look at all the attention I get when I'm not even here! If it works for me then it must work exponentially for those who've written the bible.
Quote: clarkacalI believe the world is better off with the Bible than without whether it is the truth or not. Yes wars and death have resulted from it but they were there before it and still would be here if it never existed, it would just be over a magical lake or something. The bible has inspired mankind to innovate architecturally, artistically, industrially, etc. far beyond what simple necessity would have pushed us to. Where it starts to get shaky for me is that the authors proclaim themselves "the chosen ones." Come on now.
I think that the Bible is quite possibly the most important book in human history. As in, a "BOOK". Not a divinely-inspired manual on how to live your life, or a collection of absolute truths. It is a text, like many others in human history, that primarily is meant to support a particular human mythology. Nothing wrong with that--I enjoyed reading "Beowulf", too. But as a pretext for trying to dominate, enslave, rob, and kill other people? Or for that matter, for telling them what to do and how to live their lives? Naah.
Quote: mkl654321I think that the Bible is quite possibly the most important book in human history. As in, a "BOOK". Not a divinely-inspired manual on how to live your life, or a collection of absolute truths. It is a text, like many others in human history, that primarily is meant to support a particular human mythology. Nothing wrong with that--I enjoyed reading "Beowulf", too. But as a pretext for trying to dominate, enslave, rob, and kill other people? Or for that matter, for telling them what to do and how to live their lives? Naah.
Nobody built a cathedral or invented the printing press because of Beowulf.
Quote: clarkacalNobody built a cathedral or invented the printing press because of Beowulf.
Maybe not. But people built pyramids and temples for all sorts of deities in various parts of the world.
Quote: mkl654321I think that the Bible is quite possibly the most important book in human history. As in, a "BOOK". Not a divinely-inspired manual on how to live your life, or a collection of absolute truths. It is a text, like many others in human history, that primarily is meant to support a particular human mythology. Nothing wrong with that--I enjoyed reading "Beowulf", too. But as a pretext for trying to dominate, enslave, rob, and kill other people? Or for that matter, for telling them what to do and how to live their lives? Naah.
I'd be careful, or he'll get pulled into talking negatively about the Koran and all of its violence-inciting passages. Then the Feds will show up at Wizard's home.
Quote: JerryLoganHuh? I'm a "chosen one" and I can prove it. Just look at all the attention I get when I'm not even here! If it works for me then it must work exponentially for those who've written the bible.
Oh, Jerry, Jerry, Jerry. You're not a "chosen one", you're a conversation piece. Like last week's episode of "2 1/2 Men", or the family dog's antics. It's just something to chat about idly, not something that is actually important.
Quote: MoscaOh, Jerry, Jerry, Jerry. You're not a "chosen one", you're a conversation piece. Like last week's episode of "2 1/2 Men", or the family dog's antics. It's just something to chat about idly, not something that is actually important.
So says Mosca.....
Quote: NareedMaybe not. But people built pyramids and temples for all sorts of deities in various parts of the world.
Yes when I hear people talk of the Bible I see at as a symbol of religion in general which is an error on my part. The old "we would be better off without religion" is how I interpret attacks on the bible. Your right, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans built amazing creations far beyond what basic necessity called for in the name of religious beliefs.
I don't really think the pyramids belong in this category though. They are wonderous only because of their size, not much innovative going on there. The pyramid structure is intuitive to a toddler.
Quote: clarkacalNobody built a cathedral or invented the printing press because of Beowulf.
Nobody did those things "because of" the Bible, either--those things were created over a millenium after the Bible was written. And I wouldn't view cathedrals as any kind of wonderful human accomplishment--they were mostly useless edifices built with countless man-centuries of labor; labor that could have been used to improve people's lives.
Quote: mkl654321Nobody did those things "because of" the Bible, either--those things were created over a millenium after the Bible was written.
Just because they were built after the Bible was written and compiled, doesn't mean they weren't created because of the Bible and the Christian tenets.
Quote:And I wouldn't view cathedrals as any kind of wonderful human accomplishment--they were mostly useless edifices built with countless man-centuries of labor; labor that could have been used to improve people's lives.
They can be both...a wonderful human accomplishment, and labour that could have been used elsewhere.
However, I wouldn't even view them as that... the economics of Cathedral building probably did improve some people's lives, and engineering, project management, logistics and a whole bunch of other things came out of Cathedral building. Plus some beautiful, awe-inspiring buildings that still stand and are visited by thousands of people every day, regardless of creed. St Pauls (of London), Westminster Abbey and the York Minster are among three of my favourite pieces of architecture and ingrained on my psyche.
I'd like to thank my dead ancestors for improving my life with their labour on the churches and cathedrals of the United Kingdom.
Quote: mkl654321Nobody did those things "because of" the Bible, either--those things were created over a millenium after the Bible was written. And I wouldn't view cathedrals as any kind of wonderful human accomplishment--they were mostly useless edifices built with countless man-centuries of labor; labor that could have been used to improve people's lives.
I disagree with all of that except that it happened a millenium after the bible was written. But the timeframe doesn't change the fact it was religiously driven.
Quote: MoscaUntil recently most music was written as an homage to a Christian god. And even recently we have gospel music, spirituals, and a good percentage of orchestral music (Gorecki's sacred minimalism, et al).
I disagree. Most music that SURVIVES was written to a Christian God. That's because the Church had a monopoly on most, if not all, of the institutions that would have contributed to preserving music. There has been folk music, secular music, popular music, etc. for centuries, but only a tiny fraction of it survived, while some 5-10% of religious music survived.
Quote: odiousgambit
If you fact checked this, you might find the Imuses would say it is not factual and perhaps the story started in some sort of lame way. What's the source btw?
Diedre Imus told it on the show. The Imus' are deadly serious about the ranch they run for kids dying of cancer and she would never ever make up a fake story like this about a child she was obviously close to.
Quote: thecesspitJust because they were built after the Bible was written and compiled, doesn't mean they weren't created because of the Bible and the Christian tenets.
I'd like to thank my dead ancestors for improving my life with their labour on the churches and cathedrals of the United Kingdom.
It's a REAL stretch to say that the printing press was created because the Bible existed. After all, it had existed for 1100 years in its current form before that, and that existence hadn't compelled anyone to build a printing press until then. And the printing press wasn't a "Christian" device--it had nothing to do with "Christian tenets".
Obviously, the printing press was invented because someone wanted to figure out a way to make money manufacturing and selling cheap books. The Bible was an obvious choice, but other texts were printed, too. The printing press would have been invented whether or not the Bible, or religion, existed.
I agree that cathedrals are often beautiful, but the labor, money, and materials used to build them could have been used to build homes for tens of thousands of ordinary people, who because of the diversion of those resources, continued to live in wretched housing conditions. It's perhaps a very prosaic and unglamorous thing to consider that the craft, materials and labor used to build that transept could have been used to build 100 modest stone houses, but I think it would have been a far better use of those resources to do so, and would have contributed far more to human happiness and well-being than an immense temple.
Quote: mkl654321but the labor, money, and materials used to build them could have been used to build homes for tens of thousands of ordinary people, who because of the diversion of those resources, continued to live in wretched housing conditions. .
You can say the same thing about roads. All that material and labor could have been used to house the poor. Who needs cathedrals and roads anyway.
Quote: EvenBobYou can say the same thing about roads. All that material and labor could have been used to house the poor. Who needs cathedrals and roads anyway.
Invalid comparison, Bob. Average people use and benefit from roads. The same cannot be said of cathedrals.
Quote: mkl654321I disagree. Most music that SURVIVES was written to a Christian God. That's because the Church had a monopoly on most, if not all, of the institutions that would have contributed to preserving music. There has been folk music, secular music, popular music, etc. for centuries, but only a tiny fraction of it survived, while some 5-10% of religious music survived.
OK. So you want to argue sematics.
Until recently most PERMANENT music, that which the composers and performers felt was important enough to codify and preserve, was written in homage to a Christian god.
Quote: mkl654321Invalid comparison, Bob. Average people use and benefit from roads. The same cannot be said of cathedrals.
Who benefits from cathedrals, the elite? In fact, they were built to inspire the rabble, thats their purpose.
Quote: MoscaUntil recently most music was written as an homage to a Christian god. And even recently we have gospel music, spirituals, and a good percentage of orchestral music (Gorecki's sacred minimalism, et al).
Recently? Not at all. 500 years is way past recent.
To be sure the Church dominated the arts in teh West through the dark ages, but all that nonsense stopped with the Renaissance. Also to be sure poeple have kept on doing religious art since then. I expect they will keep on doing so as long as humanity exists, too. But an anomalous period of domminance by the Church does not the rule make.
Quote: MoscaOK. So you want to argue sematics.
Until recently most PERMANENT music, that which the composers and performers felt was important enough to codify and preserve, was written in homage to a Christian god.
it's not "semantics" to say that "most music" and "most preserved/recorded music" are two entirely different things. The original point you made seemed to say that most music written and performed by mankind was religious in origin, which is not a defensible assertion.
And it's not really a matter of religious music being "important enough"--the performers and composers had access to the funds, materials, etc. that were necessary to such preservation, because for centuries, the Church was the single largest business entity in the world. Composers of folk songs, ballads, musical plays, etc. that were just as much a part of the human musical tradition weren't able to preserve those works the way Church-supported composers were.
It's not unlike when you walk through an art museum and you wonder if mythological Christian God-scenes were the only thing most composers painted in the Renaissance. The truth is, those were the kinds of paintings that got paid for and preserved.
Quote: NareedRecently? Not at all. 500 years is way past recent.
To be sure the Church dominated the arts in teh West through the dark ages, but all that nonsense stopped with the Renaissance. Also to be sure poeple have kept on doing religious art since then. I expect they will keep on doing so as long as humanity exists, too. But an anomalous period of domminance by the Church does not the rule make.
Bach. Mozart. Haydn. Beethoven's music for "Ode to Joy". All post-Renaissance.
When I wrote "recently" I mean up until the late 19th century.
Quote: mkl654321it's not "semantics" to say that "most music" and "most preserved/recorded music" are two entirely different things. The original point you made seemed to say that most music written and performed by mankind was religious in origin, which is not a defensible assertion.
And it's not really a matter of religious music being "important enough"--the performers and composers had access to the funds, materials, etc. that were necessary to such preservation, because for centuries, the Church was the single largest business entity in the world. Composers of folk songs, ballads, musical plays, etc. that were just as much a part of the human musical tradition weren't able to preserve those works the way Church-supported composers were.
Next time I write for an internet forum I'll make sure I maintain the rigor of an academic treatise.
LOL.
The fact that the church was behind it is pretty much the point. The church got big because people believed. And that made it important to devise a way to make permanent the music.
Quote: MoscaNext time I write for an internet forum I'll make sure I maintain the rigor of an academic treatise.
LOL.
Well, LOL, you were the one who, LOL, made the remark about "semantics", so if you, LOL, care about, LOL, semantics, LOL, you should also care about, LOL, academic rigor. But I'm not holding you to that high of a standard--just that of proving your statement that most music was religiously oriented.
Quote: mkl654321Well, LOL, you were the one who, LOL, made the remark about "semantics", so if you, LOL, care about, LOL, semantics, LOL, you should also care about, LOL, academic rigor. But I'm not holding you to that high of a standard--just that of proving your statement that most music was religiously oriented.
Very well. Does the research need to be original, or can I quote respected sources as proof? If the research needs to be original, I have to plead not caring enough about it to do the work. And I might do that anyhow, since I have no vested interest in proving how smart I am.
Quote:At the risk of going off topic, the bible already shows that god does change his mind, which makes me question the label of omniscient. To be specific, after Noah's flood god seemed to regret killing almost every living creature on earth.
"The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done." -- Genesis 8:21 (NIV).
The bible is full of contradictions and inconsistencies, including eight legged insects, because it has been interpreted and told by man. I am a Christian but I am not an Evangelical Christian.
All too often, people believe that if someone is religious that they are also Evangelical. This is like assuming that every Muslim is a member of Al-Qaeda . Like Al-Qaeda , Evangelicals can be extremists. It is possible to be religious and not be an extremist. My religion fits quite well with modern science.
Regarding ghosts: Maybe it's an over active limbic system in someone's brain, a closed time loop, overlapping partially entangled parallel universe, or someone that just needs more attention. Maybe we are a holographic type of universe - played out and programmed like a video game, with perhaps the occasional virus or hiccup within the program.
Just my ten cents.
-Keyser
Quote: MoscaVery well. Does the research need to be original, or can I quote respected sources as proof? If the research needs to be original, I have to plead not caring enough about it to do the work. And I might do that anyhow, since I have no vested interest in proving how smart I am.
No. Ignoring your little dig, you don't need to provide rigorous proof. For that matter, you couldn't provide "proof" by quoting any of those "respected sources", because I doubt very much that any of those sources would say that "most music was religious" in reference to ANY time period in Western history. That simply ignores the prevalence of folk and secular music.
Quote: mkl654321Well, LOL, you were the one who, LOL, made the remark about "semantics", so if you, LOL, care about, LOL, semantics, LOL, you should also care about, LOL, academic rigor. But I'm not holding you to that high of a standard--just that of proving your statement that most music was religiously oriented.
So funny....Licking his wounds and phishing for support at the same time!
Quote: MoscaBach. Mozart. Haydn. Beethoven's music for "Ode to Joy". All post-Renaissance.
When I wrote "recently" I mean up until the late 19th century.
Well, Beethoven also wrote a symphony to honor Napoleon Bounaparte(sp?). he later changed his mind about the diminutive potentate, but the symphony remains. Among his other compositions are pieces like Für Elise. hardly all-religion all the time. Likewise for Mozart (Magic Flute, for example). I'm less familiar with Bach or Haydn. But coming closer to our era, Vivaldi wrote about the beauty of the Seasons. Oh, about bach, dind't he write the Brandenburg concerts?
I did not say religious art died, only that it ceased to dominate. And even renaissance and post-Renaissance art commisioned by the Church, such as Michealangelo's frescoes at the Sistine Chappel, employ a Greek-revival style of aesthetics, rather than the distorted perspectives used in the dark ages.
Quote: NareedWell, Beethoven also wrote a symphony to honor Napoleon Bounaparte(sp?). he later changed his mind about the diminutive potentate, but the symphony remains. Among his other compositions are pieces like Für Elise. hardly all-religion all the time. Likewise for Mozart (Magic Flute, for example). I'm less familiar with Bach or Haydn. But coming closer to our era, Vivaldi wrote about the beauty of the Seasons. Oh, about bach, dind't he write the Brandenburg concerts?
I did not say religious art died, only that it ceased to dominate. And even renaissance and post-Renaissance art commisioned by the Church, such as Michealangelo's frescoes at the Sistine Chappel, employ a Greek-revival style of aesthetics, rather than the distorted perspectives used in the dark ages.
Beethoven wrote relatively little overtly religious music. Bach wrote a fair amount of it, but he was often in the employ of or in the patronage of religious figures/institutions. His most celebrated pieces are explorations of musical theory. Mozart wrote some church music, but his symphonies, his concertos, and his operas are all secular in orientation.
About the latest you will see the majority of composers' work being religious in nature is the time of Palestrina or Monteverdi.
Quote: clarkacalYes when I hear people talk of the Bible I see at as a symbol of religion in general which is an error on my part. The old "we would be better off without religion" is how I interpret attacks on the bible. Your right, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans built amazing creations far beyond what basic necessity called for in the name of religious beliefs.
My point is that neither religion nor civilization beagn with the Bible, the way too many Christians (and some Jews, too), seem to think. Nor is every aspect of Western culture derived from the Bible.
Now, while the Romans built a lot of temples for their various gods, by far their most impressive architectural works were secular. Look at the Roman Colosseum, for example. When I visited Israel, just about every ruin we saw included an amphitheater built in Roman times. Throughout Europe there are bridges here and there built by the Romans. And that was Rome's major construction project: the roads that knit the Empire together.
Quote:I don't really think the pyramids belong in this category though. They are wonderous only because of their size, not much innovative going on there. The pyramid structure is intuitive to a toddler.
I suggest you take a good look at some Aztec or Toltec pyramids, and their stone work in general, and reconsider this statement. Given the state of the art at the time, such buildings are impressive.
Quote: clarkacalWhether or not the people or the motives behind it were holy is not the point. My point is many if not most of the important innovations that have shaped today's world were a result of the presence of religion.
Now, THAT is a completely indefensible statement. I can see how, though, if you were religious, you might make yourself think that.
The only technology that has benefited from the presence of religion is the science of torture. Other than that, religion has ACTIVELY OPPOSED science, technology, reason, human advancement, and knowledge, because the more you know, the less likely you are to show up Sunday and put a little gold in the collection plate.
In fact, I'll go further than that, and hypothesize that if not for religion, we would be three or four centuries more advanced than we are now.
