Ghosts; How do they fit into your religion?

[IronBlood]

I've been wondering this for quite a while now. If assumed that ghosts do exist how to they fit into your religion and how does your religion explain why they haven't "moved on"? Also if you are not religious (Agnostic/Atheist etc), can you scientifically or rationally explain them?

For reference what I define as ghosts are spirits that have not passed from the current world to next due to "unfinished" business, or due to emotional attachment to the place, or that souls that do not know how to pass on. I also accept that most of the photos of "ghosts" are optical illusions due to bending of light or just simply coincidences

Some pics to stir the debate


This one taken at the Naval Station Pearl Harbor shows 3 sailors, but strangely they are small in body compared to the people in picture.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This one shows the faces of two sailors that were killed a short while ago. Their images remained in the waves for 10 secs and showed up on and off for a few days.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Discuss

[MaximiIian]

I think the phenomenon of ghosts can be attributed to various factors for each circumstance. Many of the instances are most likely tricks of perceptions.

However, I do think that there are some cases where the ghosts are real; one of my friends has had an experience with one. In those cases, I believe that ghosts are not so much the full spirit of a deceased person, as I think that those are always reincarnated in a continuous cycle. Rather, I think of ghosts as the residual energy of those deceased, small traces of their spirit that has no consciousness or sentience, just motion.

But, this doesn't exactly pertain to my religion, as my religious beliefs don't cover things like ghosts and phenomena often considered paranormal. My beliefs pertaining to ghosts and the like fall under a different category specific to the issue of those phenomena.

[Cluny the Scourge]

I also accept that most of the photos of "ghosts" are optical illusions due to bending of light or just simply coincidences

"Most"?

Some pics to stir the debate

Debate about what?

This one taken at the Naval Station Pearl Harbor shows 3 sailors, but strangely they are small in body compared to the people in picture.

It's film-overexposure.

This one shows the faces of two sailors that were killed a short while ago.

No, it shows waves. Normally when people see little blotches of waves, or the clouds in the sky, form into neat little eye-and-mouth arrangements they laugh about it. If two of your buddies have died recently, however, they say "Their souls are trapped in the water!".

Because they're stupid.

Hell, if they WERE ghost-faces in the water, what makes the photographer think it was the two sailors? You can't make out any details in those faces - they're just eye-and-mouth arrangements. They could be the faces of the ghosts of Abraham Lincoln and Julius Caesar.

*Snort of contempt*

However, I do think that there are some cases where the ghosts are real; one of my friends has had an experience with one. In those cases, I believe that ghosts are not so much the full spirit of a deceased person, as I think that those are always reincarnated in a continuous cycle. Rather, I think of ghosts as the residual energy of those deceased, small traces of their spirit that has no consciousness or sentience, just motion.

Since you claim this is not based on your religious beliefs, I have to know: Upon what evidence did you base this...ah..."conclusion"?

[Bokks]

"Most"?

No, it shows waves. Normally when people see little blotches of waves, or the clouds in the sky, form into neat little eye-and-mouth arrangements they laugh about it. If two of your buddies have died recently, however, they say "Their souls are trapped in the water!".

Because they're stupid.

That's a bit harsh. Especially since just to navigate to this page you need an open mind, I mean, it's not "ARE GHOSTS REAL?????" it's "How do ghosts fit in your religion."
Anyway, for some people seeing the images of loved ones or feeling their presence is part of the mourning process. Then they stop and think that maybe it's not such a great experiance for their loved ones to be stuck floating around in the water or basketball courts and think it may be better for them to "move-on", shortly after which they stop seeing the images.

Hell, if they WERE ghost-faces in the water, what makes the photographer think it was the two sailors? You can't make out any details in those faces - they're just eye-and-mouth arrangements. They could be the faces of the ghosts of Abraham Lincoln and Julius Caesar.

That's actually a really good point, one I would have brought up very soon.

Now, anyway, I would have to say that while I may disagree with the temperament with which Cluny may have approached this particular discussion, I do agree with his assertions. Especially with the second picture. With the first picture I don't see so many signs of it being an over-exposure so much as--unfortunately--something that has been completely doctored. It would take me being there and really trusting the person who took the picture to make me think that it wasn't doctored.

But that's neither here nor there, the discussion at hand is where ghosts fit in my religion.
I'd say they're a guiding force, whether they intend to be or discover themselves to be by their lot in life. Now, I'm not expressely saying I believe in ghosts, however should they "exist" it would either be to protect someone they cared about in life or to be a spectre in silent judgement of a certain place or an event that happened at a place. I don't really believe in the "hiccup" "theory" in which ghosts are simply the product of their own lives, or rather deaths, that constantly play out a given scene or something. I also don't really go for the whole "they don't know they're dead" thing... although "The Sixth Sense" really hits that one home. But anyway, it'd take a really dumb ghost to not know they died. Or, to put it in nicer terms, a really naive ghost. Being a malicious ghost makes very little sense to me either, although I've never hated someone so much that I'd dwell on them so much, nor (I hope) has anyone hated me that much, either. This does make some sense--almost--however, since if you really really really hated someone a lot it almost makes sense that that hatred would extend above and beyond the corporeal realm. But then again that doesn't really seem to exactly fit in with any religion, specifically.

So yeah, I'll stick with the "guidance" thing.

[Cluny the Scourge]

That's a bit harsh. Especially since just to navigate to this page you need an open mind, I mean, it's not "ARE GHOSTS REAL?????" it's "How do ghosts fit in your religion."

Not so - the opening post also says "Also if you are not religious (Agnostic/Atheist etc), can you scientifically or rationally explain them?". So my response was appropriate.

[Bokks]

Not so - the opening post also says "Also if you are not religious (Agnostic/Atheist etc), can you scientifically or rationally explain them?". So my response was appropriate.

Excellent point. I overlooked that fact.
I stand in polka dot boxers by the side of the road corrected... (ahh, good times...)
I'd say a simple "no" would have been in order, though...

[MaximiIian]

What the is with you and empiricism? I never claimed to have empirical evidence, so why are you asking me as if I did?

I never said it was fact, either. Read it again; I repeatedly say "I think" not "I know". It's speculation. But I believe that my speculative ideas are a inductive explanation of the occasional example of a real ghost (nothing you ing say can convince me that my friend was ing lying about experiencing a ghost). Beliefs have nothing to do with empirical evidence, but emotional experience tempered with inductive reasoning. That's what make them beliefs.

[Cluny the Scourge]

What the is with you and empiricism? I never claimed to have empirical evidence, so why are you asking me as if I did?

I never said it was fact, either. Read it again; I repeatedly say "I think" not "I know". It's speculation.

If you are aware of no evidence to the effect that ghosts are leftover traces of "spirit" energy, you have no basis to "think" or to "know" that this is the case. Your speculation is based on nothing but fancy.

But I believe that my speculative ideas are a inductive explanation of the occasional example of a real ghost (nothing you ing say can convince me that my friend was ing lying about experiencing a ghost).

Did you consider that your friend might have been ill, or temporarily mentally disturbed, and had an hallucination? Was he grieving for a lost loved one at the time and thought he'd seen them? Or had he just emerged from a state of sleep or semi-consciousness and so his brain was still partly affected by its sleep-cycle responses?

Beliefs have nothing to do with empirical evidence, but emotional experience tempered with inductive reasoning. That's what make them beliefs.

And what does your reasoning inductively operating from? What do you think the word "evidence" actually means? It does not mean "conclusive proof" - it means something to work from in your opinion on the subject. And a "belief" on a subject is exactly the same as an "opinion" - you are begging the question, hiding behind a haze of misleading wordplay. To have a belief about something, it has to come from somewhere. In your case you've made it clear that it hasn't come from your religion. So in this case you appear to have simply pulled it out of your .

[Playfishpaste]

If you are aware of no evidence to the effect that ghosts are leftover traces of "spirit" energy, you have no basis to "think" or to "know" that this is the case. Your speculation is based on nothing but fancy.



Did you consider that your friend might have been ill, or temporarily mentally disturbed, and had an hallucination? Was he grieving for a lost loved one at the time and thought he'd seen them? Or had he just emerged from a state of sleep or semi-consciousness and so his brain was still partly affected by its sleep-cycle responses?



And what does your reasoning inductively operating from? What do you think the word "evidence" actually means? It does not mean "conclusive proof" - it means something to work from in your opinion on the subject. And a "belief" on a subject is exactly the same as an "opinion" - you are begging the question, hiding behind a haze of misleading wordplay. To have a belief about something, it has to come from somewhere. In your case you've made it clear that it hasn't come from your religion. So in this case you appear to have simply pulled it out of your .

This often annoys me about many people. There is a significant difference between when someone says something is true and when someone says they believe something. Beliefs do not always require evidence, although some may want evidence to feel better about their belief or what have you. Regardless, your tone seems to be one which is better suited to tearing a part people who claim their opinions and views are fact. Something I find hilarious in arguments against supernature is people bringing up physics and science in general, as though it is of any use. You cannot refute ghosts, just like you cannot refute unicorns. If you think people who believe in ghosts are stupid, that's very nice of you. However if you don't have much constructive to say about it, then you risk looking like what you describe people who see souls trapped in water as.

[Dayman]

No such thing, as much as I love ghost stories and the like, things like that simply don't exist.

Freaky does happen, but the real explanations are all far more mundane.

Besides, if you claim they're spirits, you have to prove spirits or souls exist in the first place.

[MaximiIian]

In answer to Cluny-
Well, it sorta connects to my religious beliefs. Because my religion has a inherent belief in the concept of a soul or spirit which reincarnates.
But my religion doesn't have any specific idea regarding ghosts per se.

I think that the concept of the spirit/soul, which is omnipresent in human cultures and civilizations, probably has some root to something real and tangible. It just seems too unlikely to me for it to be so, well, everywhere, and not has some basis in something, albeit something ancient people did not understand.

The best rational guess I can make is that what many belief systems interpret as a spirit is, in more logical terms, the bioelectric impulses that sustain bodily movement and organ function, including that of the brain. That is what I think the human spirit is, albeit with a biological explanation. It is just that ancient people did not understand the mechanics of electricity, especially in regards to human physiology.

And I just went from there, in terms of speculating upon the concept of ghosts, spiritual energy, and everything that entails.
But most of my conclusions go into the area of belief and faith, which I do not claim to be based on empirical evidence. I fully accept that much of my belief system's conclusions are based in UPG- unverifiable personal gnosis.

[Manco]

In two centuries of photography one would have expected a clear picture of ghosts.

[Dayman]

The best rational guess I can make is that what many belief systems interpret as a spirit is, in more logical terms, the bioelectric impulses that sustain bodily movement and organ function, including that of the brain.

Which dissipate as soon as the generator which creates those impulses dies...

[Cluny the Scourge]

Which dissipate as soon as the generator which creates those impulses dies...

Indeed. And this strikes to the very root of the matter - people argue for the existence ghosts because they WANT them to exist so much, as one reflection of their general desire for some kind of survival of the soul and afterlife. If someone could just find existence of ghosts that would be a kind of earthly proof of these things. Hence the absurd paranormal TV shows with "mediums" using cold-calling techniques to trick people into thinking they're talking to the spirits of their dead family, and "ghost-hunter" recording the noises of building materials contracting and expanding as the temperature falls in the night and saying that it's a ghost talking, etc. People WANT it so badly they're prepared to accept any old garbage, overlooking the overwhelming tide of errors in their reasoning.

[Nutsack]

Indeed. And this strikes to the very root of the matter - people argue for the existence ghosts because they WANT them to exist so much, as one reflection of their general desire for some kind of survival of the soul and afterlife. If someone could just find existence of ghosts that would be a kind of earthly proof of these things. Hence the absurd paranormal TV shows with "mediums" using cold-calling techniques to trick people into thinking they're talking to the spirits of their dead family, and "ghost-hunter" recording the noises of building materials contracting and expanding as the temperature falls in the night and saying that it's a ghost talking, etc. People WANT it so badly they're prepared to accept any old garbage, overlooking the overwhelming tide of errors in their reasoning.

Knowing this is really depressing. People need to just chill and be realistic, accept the fact that you're probably not going to be walking this earth after your death (though that would be cool).
+rep

In two centuries of photography one would have expected a clear picture of ghosts.

That is a funny statement +rep. I will use this in the future .

[Clouse123456]

Indeed. And this strikes to the very root of the matter - people argue for the existence ghosts because they WANT them to exist so much, as one reflection of their general desire for some kind of survival of the soul and afterlife. If someone could just find existence of ghosts that would be a kind of earthly proof of these things. Hence the absurd paranormal TV shows with "mediums" using cold-calling techniques to trick people into thinking they're talking to the spirits of their dead family, and "ghost-hunter" recording the noises of building materials contracting and expanding as the temperature falls in the night and saying that it's a ghost talking, etc. People WANT it so badly they're prepared to accept any old garbage, overlooking the overwhelming tide of errors in their reasoning.

Cluny you havent had a encounter have you ? Try visiting some older parts of your town or look some local up about the paranormal.I know that this stuff infuriates you because science does noy explain much on the matter,but try it your self.Look, actually visit a haunted sight for several hours or a day.Its changed plenty of skeptics into believers. Also pardon the bad grammer.

[Dayman]

Cluny you havent had a encounter have you ? Try visiting some older parts of your town or look some local up about the paranormal.I know that this stuff infuriates you because science does explain much on the matter,but try it your self.Look, actually visit a haunted sight for several hours or a day.Its changed plenty of skeptics into believers. Also pardon the bad grammer.

I lived in a house that was handed down through our family because it was supposed to be really haunted. My aunt who lived there used to have vicious ghosts attack her there. Now, I'm gonna go out on a limb and set she had sleep paralysis, which runs in the family.

Never had a problem.

Easter Island natives had myths about lands beyond the horizon, but no evidence of their existence whatsoever.

The difference being one can pack a canoe and sail east...

[Ummon]

The difference being one can pack a canoe and sail east...

Wrong as well.

1) What do you know of the means of investigation which we will possess tomorrow?
2) Easter Island people had lost the technology/expertise for oceanic navigation.

[MaximiIian]

Which dissipate as soon as the generator which creates those impulses dies...

I know. That's what I'm saying- hence why I said I think the vast majority of ghost claims are not ghosts.
Those that are, I don't have a clear explanation for it; but I believe that such phenomena occur, sometimes.

[Chaigidel]

I prefer to think that ghosts are illusions ; god help us all if they arent.