Being the complete freak that I am, I believe 100% in Spirits, Hell, Poltergeists, and other things like that. Am I the only one?
Your not the only one. Unfortunately I think that one should believe that which has evidence behind it. So my opinion on believing in spirits is that those who do are misguided.
I don't believe in any of those. =) I don't believe things I have no evidence for myself. With spirits, there are explanations of why people see them (due to magnetic fields). :icon_bigg But I'm sure you are not the only one here. (*hug*)
I'm religious but I don't believe in spirits or and afterlife for lack of metaphysical philosophical basis that is coherent.
No, I don't believe in that sort of thing. There might be unexplained phenomena out there, but I've never heard or seen nothing out of this world, and therefore I don't believe on it. The day it happens, I won't take a photograph, I'll run to get a doctor
Oh, I believe in stuff even without evidence so...yeah. I definatley believe in an afterlife. Anyone out there who does believe?
It's interesting that you can, Bella Vampire, I really can't believe in anything without evidence. I can make assumptions, but that won't make me believe in it. I really can't.
no. everyone is. do you think event A caused event B? post hoc ergo propert hoc and the problem of induction + Hume's critique of causation. you might like to think you're Socrates and you question everything, but if you did, you'd be a jibbering mess that couldn't do anything. you have to make some base assumptions for hwihc you do not have evidence.
Excuse me? I'm only saying that not everyone is like that, yet you to seem to address me. And if you talk about me, I stated that I do make assumptions, but that I don't necessarily believe in them as being true. If you have a different opinion, that's fine, you know. :icon_wink
how is making assumptions upon which you operate functionally different from believing them to be true in your every day life?
Well, assuming that A caused B is not the same as thinking that A caused B. The result might be the same, but that doesn't make it true. There's a difference. If you know some mathematics, you should know that. Making assumptions and regarding them as true for the sake of usefulness, without stating that it is true. This happens a lot in economics as well, that's how we derive models and all that, by making assumptions. We rely on them, but that's not the same as saying that they are indeed true. E.g. One can work with an economic model, which makes some assumptions that are regarded to be true by everyone. Yet it is useful to regard the assumptions to be true, and that's why we use the economic model. But do we believe the assumptions are true? No, not everyone does. SomeLeviathan, I won't reply in this topic anymore. If you wish to discuss about it, please post something on my wall. We're drifting away from the essence of this topic.
Well, I'll just answer the question: no, I don't have any belief in them. But I am interested in the supernatural and I like stories about the paranormal. I have even written about the supernatural in my fictional works. I can be interested without believing in it outright.
yes it is. yes assuming somethign doesn't make it true, but I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that you are operating on the assumption that it is true/. Don't patronize me They are not functionally different. You aren't adressing my argument. You aren't addressing my argument.
I beleive in a afterlife and spirits (ghosts?) I have no evidence personally. But I do beleive there are some truths.
Leviathan, yes, you do have some valid points. However, I see no reason that once called into question, a belief found to be lacking in evidence should be maintained.