I will however still used my limited knowledge of religious theories to categorized some of the things brought forth in the paranormal.

its just a word dont let it disturb

in a forum like this words are all we have to communicate with, rage. i still maintain that faith-based beliefs are not provable by scientific methods. at least not in the present day.

hmm hard to say but in just my opinion by the time the scientist has exhausted his time proving that there is nothing behind a religion it's usually to late to understand all he needed was alittle faith.

but that is an oxymoron of an idea: it is impossible for a scientist to prove something that he needs to take on faith alone. i don't think most scientists are worrying about how to prove there isn't a god as much as trying to find answers to questions as to how the universe works. again, it's the word 'proof' that makes your statement an impossibility in regards to matters of faith. jmho.

Actually, there are many members regarding non-god-based goodness.

Probably millions of people.

For me goodness is caused by trying to be good.

I'm always trying. /biggrin.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' />

Hi and welcome to PUG, MissingK8. /smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' />

Thanks for the response. I have my own religion, I'm the only member. Involves trying to be a good person and nature, it's not god based.

I love hearing about others experiences, as I've had none.

I'm an open minded skeptic, very interested in the paranormal and enjoy trying to figure it all out with others.

I think it's all about experiences and what can be learned, or shared.

Actually, there are many members regarding non-god-based goodness.

this is such a good question and discussion.

i have stated elsewhere that i am an agnostic. i am for complete separation of education/religion unless a parent chooses to send their child to a religious school. that is their decision and option. otherwise we become the laffing stock of the world for even considering ID being taught beside evolution.

to address your statement, SFtheD, i can only go by the experiences i have had. i am not sure a residual haunting involves ghosts at all. it may be just an imprint. perhaps the very energy of pain, supreme stress etc are enough to leave this.

i don't know why some say they are 'stuck' here. i do believe that sometimes spirits are near us because they love us, they know we are in pain from the loss of their worldly selves. in other words the choose to be where they are. i believe they can come and go as they wish, at least some of them. i do not personally believe in hell, but i have come to wonder if the afterlife isn't another place where learning is involved and some are just better/quicker than others.

i have been interested in the paranormal my whole life, but have been and remain a skeptic. i only truly trust what i have experienced. those experiences have changed the way i look at the subject and the interpretation of results that investigators get.

i realize have probably just confused the issues being discussed, but i know what i've experienced and tha'ts all i can go by.

best,

annie

Hi and welcome to PUG, MissingK8. /smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

Thanks for the response. I have my own religion, I'm the only member. Involves trying to be a good person and nature, it's not god based.

I love hearing about others experiences, as I've had none.

I'm an open minded skeptic, very interested in the paranormal and enjoy trying to figure it all out with others.

I think it's all about experiences and what can be learned, or shared.

My view is that, if there is a God, it is more of a unifying presence in the universe that not only connects each of us, but exists as a part of each of us. Like you would dip a cup into the ocean and get some ocean water that is still of the ocean while not being the entire ocean, that is how I see our relationship to God.

You sound like a deist. The Founding Fathers were overwhelmingly deist in their beliefs. They believed that there was an intelligent creator but that His/Her/Their/Its direct involvement in our affairs ended at the time of creation.

It is possible to believe in spirit/soul/afterlife without believing in a deity. A deity could be merely a convenient way to explain natural mechanisms that we do not yet understand... much as 500 years ago sick people were believed to have been afflicted with demon infestations or curses. Perhaps one day we will develop the technology to capture ghosts/souls and be able to hold them. (For questioning?) /wink.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' />

To answer your question, I have no idea. My religion is quite seperate from my paranormal beliefs.

I have heard people say if the paranormal "was" proven this would confirm the after life.

I think how? Would it be the paranormal as we talk about it? Evp's, apparations (sometimes missing body parts) residual hauntings are no afterlife I would want to be part of, IF that would be the proven definition.

Then, I go back to the definition time and time again of what is the paranormal. Why do some say they are "stuck" here and need help to move on. If all the descrpitions of the paranoramal were proven and true, then would not the paranormal be "hell" on earth maybe.

IF there is something more to the afterlife, I hope it is more than the current decription of the paranormal.

Whatever the paranormal is or isn't, it has nothing to do with an afterlife for me.

I get the vibe it's more of a limbo/hell, if they exist, also.

this is such a good question and discussion.

i have stated elsewhere that i am an agnostic. i am for complete separation of education/religion unless a parent chooses to send their child to a religious school. that is their decision and option. otherwise we become the laffing stock of the world for even considering ID being taught beside evolution.

to address your statement, SFtheD, i can only go by the experiences i have had. i am not sure a residual haunting involves ghosts at all. it may be just an imprint. perhaps the very energy of pain, supreme stress etc are enough to leave this.

i don't know why some say they are 'stuck' here. i do believe that sometimes spirits are near us because they love us, they know we are in pain from the loss of their worldly selves. in other words the choose to be where they are. i believe they can come and go as they wish, at least some of them. i do not personally believe in hell, but i have come to wonder if the afterlife isn't another place where learning is involved and some are just better/quicker than others.

i have been interested in the paranormal my whole life, but have been and remain a skeptic. i only truly trust what i have experienced. those experiences have changed the way i look at the subject and the interpretation of results that investigators get.

i realize have probably just confused the issues being discussed, but i know what i've experienced and tha'ts all i can go by.

best,

annie

I do, and to some extent I agree. I have a tough spot with religion being taught in the public schools, and certainly creationism (at least teaching the Garden of Eden story) seems a step backwards in light of the overwhelming evidence for evolution. I grew up being taught the mythology of religion, and I remember always - even very young - discerning it more like a parable. To me, the stories in the Bible were stories that just made a larger point. I actually see the Bible as more of a story about man's spiritual evolutionary path than a collection of true tales. I know that I am probably in the minority with this viewpoint.

I know with our kids, we teach them what all different faiths believe. I would like them to have the opportunity to chose faith - or opt out of faith - because of their own feelings and conclusions. And so I dislike it when they are taught biblical stories as truth in school. I live in a small, conservative and religious town. This happens. A lot. The school knows me. They like me in other ways, but they aren't thrilled when I let them know I am unhappy when something religious has been talked about as fact. I have no problem with them learning the religious stories, learning Bible stories. What I do have a problem with is that these things are presented as absolute fact.

Kids should be kids until their minds are fully formed, in my opinion. Comparative religion classes in college, or perhaps high-school are the proper venue for this . . . stuff.

My answer to the original post is a firm no. In fact, religion, the god of the gaps, is turning into the god of the margins, and as more scientific advances are made, it will soon (hopefully) fall from the page as a place for most to find intelllectual satisfaction. You can be good without god, and I find most religious dogmas stultifying. Steven Gould called religion and science "non-overlapping magisteria." I admired the man, but for myself, I'm not willing to make any accomodations. There is no reason to "teach the argument," as W suggested in the ID versus Evolution flap. There simply is no argument. The intelligent design community is trying to shoehorn religion into science classes where it doesn't belong. "Evolution is just a theory they claim." Just so, as is gravity, and could we really be without the germ theory of disease? Natural selection has an overwhelming amount of evidence in its favor. "God did it" does not.

To teach nonsense to children in religion classes is one thing; to do so in science classes is absurd. People sometimes ask why atheists seem to be pissed all the time. Well, we're not, all the time. But when it comes to this, well yeah.

Do you get what I'm trying to say here?

I do, and to some extent I agree. I have a tough spot with religion being taught in the public schools, and certainly creationism (at least teaching the Garden of Eden story) seems a step backwards in light of the overwhelming evidence for evolution. I grew up being taught the mythology of religion, and I remember always - even very young - discerning it more like a parable. To me, the stories in the Bible were stories that just made a larger point. I actually see the Bible as more of a story about man's spiritual evolutionary path than a collection of true tales. I know that I am probably in the minority with this viewpoint.

I know with our kids, we teach them what all different faiths believe. I would like them to have the opportunity to chose faith - or opt out of faith - because of their own feelings and conclusions. And so I dislike it when they are taught biblical stories as truth in school. I live in a small, conservative and religious town. This happens. A lot. The school knows me. They like me in other ways, but they aren't thrilled when I let them know I am unhappy when something religious has been talked about as fact. I have no problem with them learning the religious stories, learning Bible stories. What I do have a problem with is that these things are presented as absolute fact.

To teach nonsense to children in religion classes is one thing; to do so in science classes is absurd. People sometimes ask why atheists seem to be pissed all the time. Well, we're not, all the time. But when it comes to this, well yeah.

Do you get what I'm trying to say here?

I'm am far from being scientific, and I'm definitely spiritual, but I'd say that, ultimately, they are working toward the same thing ... a better understanding of the world around us. Sure, there are big differences between the two ...

And actually, this is one of the things that I love about this forum. We discuss spirituality, personal experiences, AND the science around them. We have a very good balance between those I think.