PsiPog.net

View topic - why are ghosts considered religious?

PsiPog.net Forum Index » General Discussion » why are ghosts considered religious?

Goto page 1, 2 Next

why are ghosts considered religious?

Poll: do you think ghosts are a part of religion?

yes

15%

[ 3 ]

70%

[ 14 ]

not suitable for this forum

10%

[ 2 ]

i don't know/more information required

[ 1 ]

Total Votes : 20

Author

Message

why are ghosts considered religious? on Sun Jun 04, 2006 9:40 pm

Yamamaya

Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 292

why does everyone tie ghosts in with religion? i don't want any history behind it, for i already know it, and it's banned. i like the topic of ghosts and spirits because it ties in with OBEs in a special way. i don't see them in any sort religious, so please just give me a straight on answer behind the connection.

for the mods, if this topic becomes too religious, you can lock this post. i hope it does not.

Posted on Sun Jun 04, 2006 9:45 pm

Nightshade

Joined: 22 Feb 2006
Posts: 421

talking about ghosts hints at an afterlife of some sort. most religions believe that you have a spirit "living" inside of your body, and your body is a shell that harbours the spirit. in many religions ghosts are spirits in which the human "shell" has died. so if you are talking about ghosts you are *in a way* portraying the belief about the body being the shell for the spirit, and the ghost would be the liberated spirit. and since this belief is pretty closely tied with the religious belief i stated above, talking about ghosts is pretty much talking about religion...sorry i'm not explaining this well, i'm very tired Wink

Posted on Sun Jun 04, 2006 10:13 pm

Peebrain

Site Admin
Joined: 27 Nov 2005
Posts: 716

The definition that PsiPog uses is...

Something is religious if it indirectly implies, or directly answers one or both of the following questions: 1. What happens when we die? 2. How were we created?

Talking about ghosts almost always implies an afterlife, which would be a partial answer to #1, which is considered religious.

For more information on why this rule exists, and why we use this definition of religion, please see http://psipog.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3036

~Sean

Posted on Mon Jun 05, 2006 8:16 am

Yamamaya

Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 292

i have no complaints on how you define religion. i guess that ghosts are not a viable topic here. thanks anyway for sating my curiosity.

Posted on Tue Jun 06, 2006 3:35 am

Kief

Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 120

"1. What happens when we die? 2. How were we created?"

In this sense wouldn't neuroscience (among other biological studies) and evolution be considered religion?

Our consciousness shuts off and our brain and bodily functions cease.
We evolved over time from simpler life forms.

These are basic facts of life. Religions either lie about those facts, try to expand upon them and conform them to their beliefs, or ignore them and make up their own fairy tale world.

I don't see how ghosts have to suggest any sort of religion or afterlife. People may try to explain ghosts as being memory imprints or echos from the past. That isn't very religious. Also, if one were to subscribe to the idea that a ghost is the (sub/un)consciousness of a dead person, surely this need not imply an afterlife, as the ghost itself is still an entity in this realm, only disembodied. If disembodiment is religious, well... Then wouldn't astral projection be as well? But it is the fault of persons who will create more than necessary explanations, relagating ghosts to needing afterlives, or being wandering spirits.

Could it not be that all these ghosts wander the earth because that's all there is to go to? No afterlife, no other dimension, you just stay on earth and are a disembodied consciousness. Seems reasonable to me, and it doesn't require afterlives or religious explanation. But it would be one explanation for the presence of ghosts or ghostly phenomena.

Posted on Tue Jun 06, 2006 4:20 am

Woodpecker

Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 218

Kief wrote:

Ok, most religions that I've heard of assume that a deity created us. Evolutionary theory goes against this idea, so it is not considered religious. Sometimes, as in the case of the bible, such knowledge/theories were not available at the time they were created, so they had to come up with an idea of their own. Afterall, evolutionary theory is a THEORY, it is not fact. Just like Genesis it is only someone's idea of a probable explanation, so religious ideas of creation are not necessarily lies.

Quote:

Could it not be that all these ghosts wander the earth because that's all there is to go to? No afterlife, no other dimension, you just stay on earth and are a disembodied consciousness.

Yes, it's possible. My argument against that is that if it was true, surely there would be ghosts everywhere, with every person on this planet seeing at least one dead relative? Also, if they were only memories or echoes from the past, they would slowly fade out of existence as people forgot about them.

Astral projection is not necessarily coming out of the body (though I haven't done this so feel free to contradict me). It could be that you are suddenly able to view from a different perspective without actually leaving your body. Again, this is just my interpretation.

In a nutshell, remember that evolutionary theory is not proven fact (although it might be proved sometime in the future). Also, ghosts carry many religious connotations, which is why it is a risky business to talk about them on these forums even if there is actually nothing to really substantiate anything about them. I apologise to the mods for blatantly breaking the 'no religion' rule, but I felt that these points had to be clarified. Smile

Posted on Tue Jun 06, 2006 9:14 am

Alexandra

Joined: 15 Jan 2006
Posts: 160

But spirits don't always have to do with the afterlife. Like a guide or angel?(I don't consider angels riligious.. heh I can't even spell it.)
Or just a blob of energy that took the form of a spirit. That has nothing to do with afterlife right?

Re: why are ghosts considered religious? on Tue Jun 06, 2006 3:32 pm

TheTelepath

Joined: 30 May 2006
Posts: 151

Yamamaya wrote:

It affirms to them, in a way, that their is life after death. It affirms to them in a way that their doctrines are true and correct.

Posted on Tue Jun 06, 2006 10:04 pm

Peebrain

Site Admin
Joined: 27 Nov 2005
Posts: 716

In this sense wouldn't neuroscience (among other biological studies) and evolution be considered religion?

Yes! Some scientific subjects do fall under religion.

Our consciousness shuts off and our brain and bodily functions cease.
We evolved over time from simpler life forms. These are basic facts of life.

Your beliefs are very similar to a fundamental religious belief. What makes you any different than a person who says "We came from Adam and Eve... this is just a basic fact of life."? Just because YOU think it's a basic fact of life doesn't mean everyone else does.

I don't see how ghosts have to suggest any sort of religion or afterlife. People may try to explain ghosts as being memory imprints or echos from the past. That isn't very religious.

As I said in my first post, "talking about ghosts almost always implies an afterlife". That doesn't mean talking about ghosts is ALWAYS religious. Some interpretations and discussions about ghosts might not fall under religion. But a lot do.

Could it not be that all these ghosts wander the earth because that's all there is to go to? No afterlife, no other dimension, you just stay on earth and are a disembodied consciousness. Seems reasonable to me, and it doesn't require afterlives or religious explanation.

Under the PsiPog definition of religion, that explaination is religious in nature, because you are providing a direct answer to the question: What happens when we die?

Let me explain this very clearly:

PsiPog is focused on personal experience. NO ONE HERE has PERSONALLY EXPERIENCED dieing. A few members have been clinically "dead", but brought back to "life". This isn't the type of death I'm talking about. I'm talking about 100% death, no coming back. No one here has experienced that. THEREFORE, no one can offer PERSONAL EXPERIENCE on what happens when we die.

PsiPog is focused on personal experience. NO ONE HERE has PERSONALLY EXPERIENCED the origin of reality. No one here was around for the "big bang". No one here was around for "Adam and Eve". THEREFORE, no one can offer PERSONAL EXPERIENCE on how we were created.

This is why the rule exists. If you are implying an answer to what happens when we die, and/or you are implying an answer to how we were created, THEN it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to be speaking from personal experience.

Do you understand?

~Sean

Posted on Wed Jun 07, 2006 5:04 am

Kief

Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 120

"Ok, most religions that I've heard of assume that a deity created us."

But not all... Buddahism is one that comes to mind quickly in this regard.

"Evolutionary theory goes against this idea, so it is not considered religious."

Evolution does not touch upon the idea of a god(s) or deity at all. It is entirely apart from any kind of explanation that invokes deities.

"Sometimes, as in the case of the bible, such knowledge/theories were not available at the time they were created, so they had to come up with an idea of their own.

People at the time (especially ancient Hebrews) did not understand nature as we do now. They had no knowledge of anything pertaining to science. They were at best amature astronomers.

"Afterall, evolutionary theory is a THEORY, it is not fact."

Um, NO, it IS a fact. You evolved, I evolved, and so didn't all life. Go back to school.

People didn't just come up with the idea of evolution by dreaming it up out of a hat like they did with the genesis myth and every other myth of creation.

"Just like Genesis it is only someone's idea of a probable explanation, so religious ideas of creation are not necessarily lies."

Wrong. Myths like genesis are rooted solely in human imagination and have no evidence to support anything that they claim.

"My argument against that is that if it was true, surely there would be ghosts everywhere, with every person on this planet seeing at least one dead relative?"

Well, I would counter this in a few ways. I'll go with the more logical one rather than the one I think is closer to reality because it is simply too ludicrous for normal people to accept. Logically, the ghosts are all there wandering around, we just can't see them. Just like we do not see all forms of radiation in the electromagnetic spectrum, we could be blind to seeing "ghostly radiation" because we are simply not wired for it, just as we are not wired to see radio waves, x rays, ultraviolet waves, and infrared.

"Also, if they were only memories or echoes from the past, they would slowly fade out of existence as people forgot about them."

Well, I would assume the imprint is actually something imprinted in the very fabric of reality and space/time, not something relegated to just memory.

"Astral projection is not necessarily coming out of the body (though I haven't done this so feel free to contradict me)."

I would say most thoughts about astral projection are entirely incorrect. I do not think there is any sort of astral realm anywhere. An astral realm would be right here alongside reality, just containing the things we don't see, like those x rays mentioned earlier. But I do think consciousness can leave bodies and perhaps be "projected" from a body.

"In a nutshell, remember that evolutionary theory is not proven fact"

As a biologist, I can tell you that you are entirely wrong.

Evolution is a proven fact. It is also partly theory.

Your definition of theory is very wrong, and you are confusing a layperson's use of "theory" with what theory means in science.

You cannot say evolution is not a proven fact when there are multiple instances of observed speciation events, adaptation, and shit man, the entire foundation of genetics is evolution, and evolution is genetics. The 2 go hand in hand.

"Also, ghosts carry many religious connotations,"

I would entirely disagree, unless one ascribes religious connotations to them.

Posted on Wed Jun 07, 2006 5:51 am

Kief

Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 120

"Yes! Some scientific subjects do fall under religion."

Like?

Science does not typically deal in explanations that involve or invoke deities, supernaturalism, spirits, superstition, dogmas, myths, and other such fanciful things.

One can talk about religion in a scientific context, but science is not a religion and the basic laws of nature that we have discovered are not in any way religious. This includes evolution.

"Your beliefs are very similar to a fundamental religious belief."

Wrong. I don't believe in evolution. I don't have to.

"What makes you any different than a person who says "We came from Adam and Eve... this is just a basic fact of life."?"

EVIDENCE. Lots and lots of evidence.

"Just because YOU think it's a basic fact of life doesn't mean everyone else does."

It doesn't matter what I think or they think, but it IS a basic fact of life and it will roll over us when we are long extinct.

Allele frequencies will always change over time so long as there are large enough populations alive to support such a change. Which means, so long as there are enough individuals, life will evolve and it will survive given some time and chance.

People can accept it or not, but the fact remains that we have seen life evolve in nature, and have also seen it evolve in labratory settings. We have straight up made it evolve. We can also dig up everything in the ground and see how life has evolved over time via the fossilized (and unfossilized) remains we dig up. We can peer into the sky using telescopes and see the universe in the past, as it was evolving, how it did evolve, and what stars/galaxies will evolve into.

"that explaination is religious in nature, because you are providing a direct answer to the question: What happens when we die?"

Answers to that question are not always religious in nature. Religion implies dogmas, a centralized leader, deities, etc.

Biology does not invoke any such things to explain what happens when we die. Brain and bodily functions cease, and tissues and cells decay. That is not religious, but does explain what happens when we die.

"No one here was around for the "big bang"."

We did not have to be there to witness the event to know it happened.

Likewise we do not have to see exactly how we evolved from lesser primates to humans to know it happened.

The key is in evidence, something people here have a very limited grasp of, especially when they say evolution is something not yet proven, yet psionics is. I know not you, but other people.

I'm sure you're trying to play a little bit of devil's advocate, but this is 2006. People need to accept the basic facts of life, because they are not going to change.

No one was around when that guy murdered his wife, but there was plenty of evidence. Blood, fingerprints, a weapon, motive, hair. We don't have to have been there at that moment in time to figure out and know what happened.

"If you are implying an answer to what happens when we die, and/or you are implying an answer to how we were created, THEN it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to be speaking from personal experience."

Creation implies a creator, a deity. Life was not "created" by evolution, it invokes no deities or creators. When we die, our brains stop working, we stop breathing and pumping blood, and our bodies decay. I know these 2 things from personal experience and evidence found in nature. Neither of these explanations are religious yet they do explain "where we come from" and "where we go".

Posted on Wed Jun 07, 2006 9:24 am

MarcusT

Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 227

Kief, might be a detailed explanation against religion in general, but what you see/ and believe is also a form of religion. If you want to get down right technical, the use of psionics by crackpots could be considered a religion and we're refered to as crackpots in general society, because we believe in the abilities and strive to improve em ect.

It just the same with everything else, get enough people to believe one way, everybody else that doesn't believe that way considers it as a crackpot religion so, either way you want to slice this thing it's still a form of religion.

Posted on Wed Jun 07, 2006 12:22 pm

Kief

Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 120

"but what you see/ and believe is also a form of religion."

No it is not. You want to relegate everything to 'religion' and this just is not the case with reality. Religion is a very specificly defined thing.

"If you want to get down right technical, the use of psionics by crackpots could be considered a religion"

Going by the way many people talk about psionics, and how they try to "convert" people to try and do psionic things, I would have to say it is becomming something of a cult/religion yes.

"either way you want to slice this thing it's still a form of religion."

Psionics religious, probably. Science religious? Absolutely not.

Posted on Wed Jun 07, 2006 3:23 pm

Dbizket

Joined: 16 May 2006
Posts: 85

Well now, the majority here believes that Ghosts have nothing to do with religion. Are we free to talk about it now?

Posted on Wed Jun 07, 2006 4:52 pm

Woodpecker

Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 218

Sorry Kief but if something is part theory, how can it be fact? I'm not trying to pick holes in your argument, just interested.

Now, 'myths' like Genesis may be rooted in the human imagination and no, the Hebrews did not have the same scientific knowledge that we do. However I find it hard to believe they hadn't heard the question, "Where do we come from?". So isn't it logical that they should think of an answer? Afterall, if we ask questions and pose ideas, then we can get somewhere. That is what scientific research is based on isn't it?

I accept that as a biologist you know a bit more about evolution than me. A general point though:

Quote:

go back to school.

There is no need for this sort of insult. What have I done? Have I hurt you in some way? Have I insulted or offended you? I might even point out you don't even know how old I am, so you can't be expected to know whether I am in school or not. OK, so I made a mistake. All you needed to do was correct my error and we could move on. Perhaps if I made blunders like this all the time an insult might be considered a reasonable response, but on this occasion I don't think it is warranted. Open hostility like this is going to get you banned. I have no problem with your opinions, but the way you present them is offensive and unkind. We would all be willing to have a friendly discussion with you on this topic, as that is afterall part of why we are here. However, you aren't going to do yourself any favours by insulting, flaming and incensing the other members of this site. Out of courtesy to the psions here and people in general, please stop!

Goto page 1, 2 Next

PsiPog.net Forum Index » General Discussion » why are ghosts considered religious?

You must agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy to view this website. Click here to contact the webmaster.