How much proof is enough?

[Will Due]

49 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

It might also be more true that there is no such thing as a spirit at all for that matter.

 

Which would be a sweeping conclusion.

When a sports team triumphs (if there's no such thing as spirit) how would you explain, when there are things involved between teammates that are unspoken, which are highly responsible for a team's success?

In other words, if there's no such thing as spirit, explain what it is that we call "team spirit".

 

 

Edited March 28, 2019 by Will Due

[Will Due]

 

If there's no such thing as spirit, team spirit in particular, how can certain group activities such as is observed in the behaviour of ants for example be explained?

How can instinct be explained without there being a spiritual component?

 

 

Edited March 28, 2019 by Will Due

[Will Due]

 

From what I've read about insects, most are born as fully functioning adults. Knowing what to do instinctively right off the bat, without any previous experience to learn from.

How can this be explained without their being a spiritual component in animals?

Guiding them "instinctively"?

 

 

Edited March 28, 2019 by Will Due

[+Hammerclaw]

2 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Trust in conclusions reached without any collateral evidence sounds a lot like mere gullibility in most usages of that word that I've encountered.

That's not true, the 'con' that no one can provide any good evidence for gods existing is not an assumption.  You would seem to agree given your accurate comments on the necessity of 'faith'.

It's assumptive to base disbelief on it and assumptive or presumptive arrogance to judge the Faithful, gullible. Do I have to post the definition of the word?

Edited March 28, 2019 by Hammerclaw

[jmccr8]

10 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

No it means that clinically despite my experiences i can say i am one of the few proven sane people here  

Hi Walker

Documentation, please.

10 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

The y did NOT disbelieve

Unlike you, they were not so closed minded 

The similar experiences the y talked about were ALSO real ones, not delusions The y said they encountered other  people who have also had real physical and inexplicable experiences of a similar type  This does not mean they BELIEVED, either  

That is not their job. It is to make clinical assessments, based on the evidences of the tests, interviews, and my proven capacities and capabilities .  

Your first experience with such testing was because you identified with the character that John Travolta played in the movie Michal. How did you present your concerns to these professionals and did you tell them the same story you are telling us?

10 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I am here to tell tell stories of my experiences, on a forum called UNEXPLAINED MYSTERIES, not to seek your belief of them 

Unexplained Mysteries is more than a storytelling platform although there are parts of the forum that are specific to storytelling, the premise for many of us is to examine the evidence given. Evidence, fact, and proof are debated based on validity rather than the interpretation of what those words mean and this seems to be an ongoing problem for some storytellers.

jmccr8

[jmccr8]

10 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Belief and faith are about empowerment, courage, strength, individuality,  

 

Hi Walker

Belief and faith in myself have given me the same benefits, why do you think that I would need an external other to give credit to?

10 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

withe mob of materialists, the greedy, selfish and unkind. NOT being one of the haters the jealous the sad or the lonely  

Kind of sad that this is the limit of your understanding of your fellow man.

jmccr8

[+Liquid Gardens]

25 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

It's assumptive to base disbelief on it

No it isn't, or maybe if it is the only thing one was basing disbelief on.  Which it ain't.

26 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

assumptive or presumptive arrogance to judge the Faithful, gullible.

Speaking of assumptive and presumptive arrogance, the careful reader will note I didn't mention 'the faithful' at all, just your particular definition of faith.

30 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Do I have to post the definition of the word?

Allow me, I'll even underline the parts to pay close attention to:

gul·li·ble

/ˈɡələb(ə)l/

adjective

 

1. easily persuaded to believe something; credulous.

   "an attempt to persuade a gullible public to spend their money"

   synonyms:

   credulous, over-trusting, over-trustful, trustful, easily deceived/led,

To be compared and contrasted with "It's deep and profound trust in a conclusion one has arrived at without any collateral evidence.

[jmccr8]

10 hours ago, Habitat said:

I even have the necessary proof to convince ChrLsz that my word can be trusted.

Looks like a blank form to me as I don't see a name of a patient or date filled in. Great proof.

jmccr8

[jmccr8]

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

You could see it ,touch it, be touched by it, hear it and talk with it, as it walked beside me (many other people have done so)  BUT you would not have the same relationship with it, as i do. Nor would you understand and respond to it as i do. 

[jmccr8]

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Still the y are missing something (Because they lack something which a person who believes in, or knows god, has ) 

Hi Walker

This is based on your perspective, you do not know what exists outside of your sheltered mind.

jmccr8

[+Hammerclaw]

7 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

No it isn't, or maybe if it is the only thing one was basing disbelief on.  Which it ain't.

Speaking of assumptive and presumptive arrogance, the careful reader will note I didn't mention 'the faithful' at all, just your particular definition of faith.

Allow me, I'll even underline the parts to pay close attention to:

gul·li·ble

/ˈɡələb(ə)l/

adjective

 

1. easily persuaded to believe something; credulous.

   "an attempt to persuade a gullible public to spend their money"

   synonyms:

   credulous, over-trusting, over-trustful, trustful, easily deceived/led,

To be compared and contrasted with "It's deep and profound trust in a conclusion one has arrived at without any collateral evidence.

faith

[fāTH]

 

NOUN

1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

   "this restores one's faith in politicians"

   synonyms:

   trust · belief · confidence · conviction · credence · reliance ·

   [more]
2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

   synonyms:

   religion · church · sect · denomination · persuasion ·

   [more]

   • a system of religious belief.
     "the Christian faith"
     synonyms:

     faith · religion · religious belief(s) · religious persuasion ·

     [more]

      

     ARROGANT:

      

      

      

     arrogant adj having or showing an exaggerated opinion of one's own importance, merit, ability, etc.; conceited; overbearingly proud an arrogant teacher, an arrogant assumption

Edited March 28, 2019 by Daughter of the Nine Moons
formatting

[+Liquid Gardens]

2 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

arrogant

If accuracy is arrogant then I can definitely live with that.

Given your formulation, there are two main sets:

1. Trust in things with collaborating evidence
2. Trust in things without collaborating evidence

Number 1 is not gullibility by definition, thus somewhere in number 2 lie examples of gullibility.  Trust in things without collaborating evidence is not gullible when.... what, what other qualifications?  For me evidence has a lot to do with not being gullible, but your statement says we are 'without', so I'm not sure what other attributes are then required for gullibility. 

It's not an attack on the faithful, I'm of the opinion that everyone is gullible on some topic so to try and cut off any further descent into ad hom territory, it's not arrogant to point out that some beliefs are gullible when I have some too.

[danydandan]

15 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

If accuracy is arrogant then I can definitely live with that.

Given your formulation, there are two main sets:

1. Trust in things with collaborating evidence
2. Trust in things without collaborating evidence

Number 1 is not gullibility by definition, thus somewhere in number 2 lie examples of gullibility.  Trust in things without collaborating evidence is not gullible when.... what, what other qualifications?  For me evidence has a lot to do with not being gullible, but your statement says we are 'without', so I'm not sure what other attributes are then required for gullibility. 

It's not an attack on the faithful, I'm of the opinion that everyone is gullible on some topic so to try and cut off any further descent into ad hom territory, it's not arrogant to point out that some beliefs are gullible when I have some too.

In my opinion, for as little as it's worth, a belief can't be gullible, however the believer can be, and some are, gullible.

I don't think a certain belief can make one gullible, but I think a person can choose a belief that exemplifies their gullibility. 

By that I mean... I'm sure there are a number of users here who believe in the afterlife, take @Habitat for example, he believes in an afterlife but I'm pretty sure he doesn't believe in every anecdote he reads about others claiming experience in an afterlife....... Thus he isn't so gullible. But there are others who fall over themselves to agree with anything anyone says about an afterlife.

 

[+Hammerclaw]

20 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

If accuracy is arrogant then I can definitely live with that.

Given your formulation, there are two main sets:

1. Trust in things with collaborating evidence
2. Trust in things without collaborating evidence

Number 1 is not gullibility by definition, thus somewhere in number 2 lie examples of gullibility.  Trust in things without collaborating evidence is not gullible when.... what, what other qualifications?  For me evidence has a lot to do with not being gullible, but your statement says we are 'without', so I'm not sure what other attributes are then required for gullibility. 

It's not an attack on the faithful, I'm of the opinion that everyone is gullible on some topic so to try and cut off any further descent into ad hom territory, it's not arrogant to point out that some beliefs are gullible when I have some too.

Perhaps not-- but it's atrocious manners, which I find the epitomy of arrogance, inviting inevitable negative response. Whatever the intention, certain sorts of comments come with a price.

[Golden Duck]

20 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

How much proof?  That's easy, and I would even relax the rules so it is LESS than science would normally demand.  The amount of evidence that would change my mind (others can verify or dispute this, but i suspect most skeptical folks here might be similarly inclined) is....

the same as would be required to convince a judge and jury - in other words, that would normally be:

1. A proven 'crime' (or paranormal happening, in this case) & crime scene.

2. Sufficient evidence for a reasonable person/persons to conclude that the cause (suspect, ghost, spirit, paranormal ability) was beyond reasonable doubt.

 

That's all pretty simple and reasonable, don't you think?  If not, explain why.  And that approach is one which removes the obvious BIG problem that paranormal claimants have, namely that culturally we love the idea of ghosts, spirits, religion and gods, psychic powers, etc, and thus anything not immediately obviously explainable (let alone anything that is just a campfire tale or hoax or troll) SHOULD require a bit of scrutiny.  For without that scrutiny, all you guys have is a bunch of fairytales and the quantity of them is irrelevant.

I don't think you need ape criminal matters.

The "balance of probabilities" is a sufficient standard. 

[ChrLzs]

46 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Perhaps not-- but it's atrocious manners, which I find the epitomy of arrogance, inviting inevitable negative response. Whatever the intention, certain sorts of comments come with a price.

Atrocious?  Well, I guess everyone is also entitled to feel differently about whether gullibility (or some other carefully selected word from your fave thesaurus) is a deep insult, or a simple acknowledgement that we are not experts on all things and even the 'smartest' can be suckered,.

As for me, I like being told I'm gullible, because either they are correct and I'm about to learn something (my favorite pastime... oh ok, second favorite..), or once I've done the requisite research, I can help the other person (and possibly some lurkers) learn something (my third favorite pastime).

Some of us can admit error happily...  And I think the price of expanding our knowledge and wisdom, might just have to be that some folks will get insulted (having decided to not learn new things) and thus feel slighted by the use of the term.

..  Me, I think they should toughen up.

[+Liquid Gardens]

3 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Perhaps not-- but it's atrocious manners, which I find the epitomy of arrogance, 

Jesus the irony of you complaining about manners is a bit much, and I would have never thought you of all people possessed such thin skin.  Especially since I'm responding to what you said.  Could have sworn I've seen you tell others to buck up and put on big boy pants and the such here in the past.

The only thing I criticized are definitions of faith and gullibility, you're the one who strawmanned in people/'the faithful', and since words don't have feelings you can't really be atrociously ill-mannered towards them can you?  If you just want people to nod politely at your posts I'm sure you are aware of the other Spirituality board, otherwise you might want to ruminate a bit more on what the word 'versus' means.

23 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

 inviting inevitable negative response

Uh yea, I couldn't have paraphrased Matthew 5:39 any better myself...

26 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Whatever the intention, certain sorts of comments come with a price.

Certain sorts of comments like, "Trust in conclusions reached without any collateral evidence sounds a lot like mere gullibility in most usages of that word that I've encountered."?  The moderators here aren't big on atrocious manners, feel free to contact them and see if they agree with your opinion on that statement.

One response I thought of was that maybe for some or for you, gullibility requires more evidence to the contrary or something, people believing in things despite counter-evidence.  That seems fair, it's a narrower definition but still in line with it's general definition.  But I'm not going to make your arguments for you, especially since I've noticed with our rare conversations on these subjects that you keep your satchel of umbrage a little too ready.  On the plus side I think it took four back-and-forths before the grouchiness really emerged, which is above average, so hey, progress.

[+Liquid Gardens]

1 hour ago, danydandan said:

In my opinion, for as little as it's worth, a belief can't be gullible,

That's a good point, I was responding to a phrase that started with 'Faith isn't mere gullibility' so I just continued in that vein.

[jmccr8]

6 hours ago, Will Due said:

How can instinct be explained without there being a spiritual component?

 

Hi Will

I asked my daughter's cats and the neighbor's dog about this and they were suspiciously silent on the matter.

jmccr8

[Golden Duck]

16 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Took a poll, but also researched world wide polls. 

eg world wide about 90% of humans believe in gods but only about 40 or 50% claim a physical interaction (such as a miracle) with one

Go out and talk to any group of people you do not normally associate with. You will find a similar spread 

Because we always have more people "like us" as associates friends and family,  it doesn't work as accurately if you just use friends, associates etc,  

Meh...

After a particularly bad I pulled into a car-park. There was a lady walking around with a parking voucher; and she gave it to me.

At that time and in that context, I took it as a sign of hope. 

I've since paid it forward - it didn't cost me anything. It doesn't make me an angel. 

[Jodie.Lynne]

7 hours ago, Will Due said:

In other words, if there's no such thing as spirit, explain what it is that we call "team spirit".

Conflating and confusing human emotional states with non-corporeal spirits now?

Just in case you are confused... Humans engage in social activities and invest a lot of emotions into those activities. "Team spirit" is a sense of comradery, shared effort towards a common goal, pride in one's own efforts and those of your teammates. Which has nothing to do with spirituality.

 

How does that equal 'spirits', 'spirituality', and other non-detectable apparitions? Or are you just stirring the mud to cloud the issue?

And, although I hate to sound like a stuck record, you would have to prove 'spirits', in the religious sense, rather than just assert their existence by bad analogy.

[Habitat]

6 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Looks like a blank form to me as I don't see a name of a patient or date filled in. Great proof.

jmccr8

Joke, Joyce ! That you appear to take it as an attempted proof, well, what can be said.....

[+Hammerclaw]

.

Edited March 28, 2019 by Hammerclaw

[hereticspl]

12 hours ago, Habitat said:

Explain this mechanism whereby a non-existent God gives AIDS to African babies ? I don't follow.

It was a sarcastic statement to highlight the absurdity of saying you should just have faith in gods character.

[+Hammerclaw]

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Jesus the irony of you complaining about manners is a bit much, and I would have never thought you of all people possessed such thin skin.  Especially since I'm responding to what you said.  Could have sworn I've seen you tell others to buck up and put on big boy pants and the such here in the past.

The only thing I criticized are definitions of faith and gullibility, you're the one who strawmanned in people/'the faithful', and since words don't have feelings you can't really be atrociously ill-mannered towards them can you?  If you just want people to nod politely at your posts I'm sure you are aware of the other Spirituality board, otherwise you might want to ruminate a bit more on what the word 'versus' means.

Uh yea, I couldn't have paraphrased Matthew 5:39 any better myself...

Certain sorts of comments like, "Trust in conclusions reached without any collateral evidence sounds a lot like mere gullibility in most usages of that word that I've encountered."?  The moderators here aren't big on atrocious manners, feel free to contact them and see if they agree with your opinion on that statement.

One response I thought of was that maybe for some or for you, gullibility requires more evidence to the contrary or something, people believing in things despite counter-evidence.  That seems fair, it's a narrower definition but still in line with it's general definition.  But I'm not going to make your arguments for you, especially since I've noticed with our rare conversations on these subjects that you keep your satchel of umbrage a little too ready.  On the plus side I think it took four back-and-forths before the grouchiness really emerged, which is above average, so hey, progress.

Yes, and yours is to be arrogant and insulting while all the while batting your eyes innocently in denial as you wrap yourself in robes of piety. Save it for the rubes.