Seeing dead people?

[f0xx]

Doesn't anyone find it a bit disturbing that the spirits of our dead relatives may watch us from time to time (if not most of the time)? I am wondering what would they think if they see you what you do with your girlfriend and stuff like that

[KRins]

Well...if they are our ancestors, they did it too at one point or another f0xxy my boy. I can't claim to have any personal supernatural experience, but I am a practicing Catholic for whatever that is worth. My mom on the other hand is not a religious person. She does believe in psychics and having readings. One day she had a reading while she was on vacation in Belize. I've never been anywhere near Belize. This psychic told my mother her son, mind you my mom didn't mention she had a son, would not follow his current path and instead wander for a time before finding a place a where his face would be known to all. Strangely enough, less than two weeks later I proceeded to drop my education major, leave UCF, and spent the next couple of years working in restaurants/hotels/basically being a college dropout. Then two years ago I enrolled at Florida Southern College (its a private school in Lakeland if you Florida types haven't heard of it) and strangely enough... when I was deciding on a major the ONLY one I was drawn to was Broadcast Journalism (Television focus). I mean...not everyone is guaranteed to know my face...but the goal is sportscaster/anchor. Kinda eerie though not compared to some of the other stories.

[Twinblades713]

*Fun activities*

o.o "You were always a good little boy, what are you doing! Don't get her pregnant! You'll make the same mistake I did!"

... "Naaaanaaaaa.... quiet...."

[Pali]

The church didnt really care for evidence' date=' they were right and everyone else should hang for thinking otherwise.[/quote']

The church's model of the Earth at the center of the universe surrounded by expanding celestial/heavenly spheres was obtained from Aristotle. We weren't disagreeing here.

Your approach, Pali, is harsh and close minded imo. You take subjects that have no real scientific evidence to support OR deny, and laugh at the topic when it is hard to imagine it being anything more than a hoax.

There is no scientific evidence to deny the existence of faeries, gnomes, Bigfoot, flying spaghetti monsters, or teapots floating around every planet in the solar system - but this does not make their possible existence likely, nor does it make it something we should take seriously. As I said before, a great part of the problem with supernatural claims is that a lot of them by their very nature cannot be tested, and so we can never judge whether it applies or not - and ideas that cannot be tested are worthless when it comes to expanding our understanding of the world we live in. And as I mentioned before, I would argue that we actually DO have a good deal of evidence that the human mind exists entirely within the physical brain, ruling out a soul that would survive death.

Hence my point earlier. You would be one of the scientists mocking Galileo as he used tools you had never seen, and presented ideas so backwards that you cant believe them.

No, I would not. Regardless of the newness or oldness of his tools or ideas, Galileo had evidence to support his claims, and THAT is all I am asking for.

And I cannot make this clear enough: these are NOT new ideas that science hasn't gotten around to examining yet. These are incredibly old ideas that people have sought to verify scientifically for centuries, and in every instance where a supernatural idea was capable of being tested it failed that test. Natural explanations have consistently replaced supernatural ones over the course of human history, and a supernatural explanation has NEVER once done the reverse. Why should I expect this trend to change? Why should I ignore the incredible amount of evidence that we are purely physical creatures?

It is the same thing here, ironically, nobody even claimed to or remotly hinted at having any proof other than some interestting tales nor does anyone really care that you believe or not..yet here you are denouncing us as heretics.

Uh... I've said that I do not see any reason to take these concepts seriously. That's calling you heretics? I would think that I'm the heretic here, as heresy is defined as breaking with the orthodox tenets of a religion. My point for bringing up no one else making arguments is that I'm the one who is making arguments, hoping that someone will try to argue back, and that for the mere act of arguing a position I am denounced as having a closed mind? No one is even TRYING to defend the positions they themselves hold (hell, most won't even be clear on what their position is), and that makes me the one with the closed mind, because I am willing to defend my own position?

I find it a flaw in your way of thinking that over the course of history almost every single major breakthrough that redefined our way of thinking as a society of a whole was kicked down, thrown out, and slandered by people using the same rhetoric you are. Yet always, when hindsight is applied year later, we discover that we should of listened.

Uh, no, they weren't. My rhetoric is "Give me evidence to support your idea and I will consider it." Their rhetoric was "You are contravening the faith." There is a HUGE difference between the two, and if you think that my behavior is equivalent, then you do not know your history.

You know, it is possible to be critical, yet open minded to possibilities. After all, it is those of us who dream up new ideas, and unproven methods to achieve things that truly drive innovation and discovery.

One can be open to a possibility AND STILL THINK IT IS FALSE. This is the great advantage of accepting conclusions provisionally rather than absolutely. Again, an open mind is not one that refuses to ever take a position on an idea. An analogy that I like is that of being part of a jury. You are given two options at the end: vote guilty, or vote not-guilty. Voting not-guilty does not mean you are convinced 100% that the person is innocent, it just means you do not have enough evidence to vote guilty. Likewise, when it comes to supernatural claims, I do not have reason to vote guilty. I also have a lot of reasons to suspect innocent, but I cannot demonstrate innocence conclusively, so my vote is not-guilty (a fairly strong vote of not-guilty, mind you).

Let me ask this: what is a soul? To me the term has very little meaning, as I can rarely find two people who believe in souls and yet have the same conception of what they are (this problem happens with gods too). But if you want me to give any sort of credibility to the idea of a soul existing, I need to at least know some parameters of what a soul is supposed to be in the first place, and thus far I do not.

[KRins]

Alright. Pali you said yourself that the human understanding is constantly expanding, examples being subjects like neuroscience or astrophysics that simply did not exist in their current form 100 years ago. Is it not a distinct possibility that we, the human race, haven't developed the tools needed to actually confirm or deny supernatural activities? I mean... we didn't always know about black holes, but once we technologically evolved far enough there they were. I'm just trying to register a little reasonable doubt here.

[Pali]

Two problems here, KRins. First, many supernatural claims are not only not falsifiable in practical terms, but many are not falsifiable in any possible way - they are untestable by their very nature (deism and many other types of theism, for instance, or claims about an afterlife, or the faeries that keep the garden lush and flowering but hide every time we go looking for them, etc.). Second, even if they may be validated in the future, that still leaves us without any justification for believing in them NOW. While some people like to be very obscure on the subject, I'm willing to bet that many of you quite solidly believe that humans have souls of some kind - and my position is that even if science one day supports that notion, right now, it is not justified and should not be held. To relate this to a scientific notion - string theory makes sense mathematically, but it currently lacks testable predictions, and so I would argue that we are not justified in accepting string theory at this time regardless of whether it turns out to be true in the future.

Also, when a theoretical model in science predicts the existence of something that we have not yet directly observed, it is doing so within the context of a theory that already has established itself to a strong degree in other areas. The discovery of black holes didn't surprise anyone because relativity had already established its vast predictive power in other ways, nor are we surprised when we confirm the existence of subatomic particles theorized in quantum mechanical models because those models had already been tested in numerous other ways.

EDIT: And in regards to my supposed harshness... I really don't think that I am being so. I've held as strongly as I can to non-pejorative terminology and I've done my best to stay away from emotional appeals and ad hominem attacks. I think a lot of this perception comes from people simply not being used to supernatural thinking being criticized, because it just doesn't happen very much in our society, and it has become fairly taboo to do so. If you applied my wording and style of arguing to most other subjects (say I was arguing against 9/11 conspiracy theorists, or arguing against political conservatives, etc.), I think I'd be considered fairly even-handed.

[KRins]

I wasn't really referring to whether or not there is an afterlife... I mean, the concept of an afterlife in itself basically makes it impossible for someone to die, come back, and tell us heaven is a taco bell that actually gets your order right.

But like... residual spiritual presences and stuff... throughout human history there have been things we just didn't know about...then all of the sudden you realize that quarks have been around as long as atoms. Basically my point is that there are no absolutes in this world. You simply cannot say no, not, or never to anything because someone is discovering something this very second that no one ever knew.

[The-Nameless]

You can say you have an open mind, and you very well could pali. But approaching a subject without looking at the fact that god exists is not open minded. Telling me he does not exist because I cannot prove to you he does with facts is not open minded. It is a debate position for sure, but it is not open minded. You are not open to the fact that god exists, because your faith is Atheism. You are set not on offering up that god exists, what you have said is well, I do not think god exists, but if it ever comes to pass that he DOES exist, well I will then believe in him. Until the time comes that god reveals himself, I have no need to worship him. I just can't see how you can say open minded, yet repeteadly you have offered outright insults on the topic. I know that you are just being blunt about your ideas, and mode of thinking. I believe it is flawed. YOu cannot say your open minded, and then claim you will put faith in nothing unless it has been 100% proven true to you. That is just not being open minded. You say you need facts as to why god exists, but when facts are presented you call it "Ignorant" or "anecdotal" or "Irrelevant"

[Dead Voodoo Doll]

A watch implies a watchmaker.

http://wilybadger.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/hortus_deliciarum_-_hell.jpg

[H&R]

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

Can someone answer that question for me?

[Dead Voodoo Doll]

why would he?

funny website tho

[H&R]

Why wouldn't he, when he apparently heals other injuries?

[Dead Voodoo Doll]

ask the person doin' the prayin'

God doesn't owe them anything.

[Pali]

You simply cannot say no' date=' not, or never to anything because someone is discovering something this very second that no one ever knew.[/quote']

Where have I ever done this? You may be confusing my current rejection of supernatural claims with an absolute rejection of those claims. I do not absolutely reject any possibility beyond my own non-existence as a thinking being. There are plenty of possibilities, however, that I reject with varying degrees of certainty that they are wrong, and plenty that I reject without any degree of certainty that they are wrong but only the lack of good reasoning to suppose that they are right.

But approaching a subject without looking at the fact that god exists is not open minded.

This is not a fact. Facts are objectively verifiable observations, and clearly if a god exists, its existence does not fall within the category of fact until and unless it can be established as one. Coming into a discussion with the assumption that a god exists is not open minded - coming into a discussion with as few assumptions as possible IS.

Telling me he does not exist because I cannot prove to you he does with facts is not open minded.

I agree. Fortunately for me, that is not my position. You not being able to provide evidence in favor of your god's existence may be sufficient reason for me to reject the claim, but it certainly is not sufficient reason for me to think the claim false (to use my earlier analogy: not guilty would be a justified position, but innocent would not be). There are certain types of gods that I would argue are internally inconsistent in their definitions or are contradictory to observations and therefore cannot possibly exist, but I can't rule out the whole category of gods... particularly as new ones can be defined at whim.

You are not open to the fact that god exists, because your faith is Atheism.

No, it is not. I have yet to interact with an atheist who would define atheism as anything beyond lacking belief in a deity. It is a response to a position, it is not a position itself. I do not have faith in anything, at least when using the word in the context of belief without evidence.

YOu cannot say your open minded, and then claim you will put faith in nothing unless it has been 100% proven true to you.

First, there is a difference between believing something and having faith in something - I believe all sorts of things, but I would say I have faith in nothing because I don't find faith to be useful. Second, I can tell you with certainly that I have never said anything regarding "100% proving" something - quite the contrary, I even gave an example regarding EVP of hypothetical evidence that I would say strongly supports the concept of dead souls talking to us even though we still wouldn't have a soul to analyze (another example would be that once relativity was established though testing of the model's predictions it was perfectly reasonable to believe in the existence of black holes, even prior to actually observing any). I don't look for proofs - they do not exist outside of formal logic. When it comes to reality, we cannot know anything with absolute certainty, and so I neither strive for that nor do I hold anything to that level of confidence.

You say you need facts as to why god exists, but when facts are presented you call it "Ignorant" or "anecdotal" or "Irrelevant"

Anecdotes are not facts. Again, facts are objectively verifiable observations - stories people tell each other do not qualify, and they certainly are not enough evidence to establish incredible claims. The funny part is that you know this just as well as I do. So does everyone else. If I came up to you and told you that I was abducted by aliens last night who introduced me to Elvis, who has been living with them, would you believe a word of it? If a friend of mine supported me in this and said that he also was abducted, would that make you any more likely to believe our story? Unless we actually had some verifiable evidence to back us up, you would be a gullible fool to believe a story like that - and you know it. What's more, this really isn't a hypothetical - there are plenty of stories like this from people that you can find that describe alien abductions in detail. Do you believe them all? If you do, then I don't think there's anything I can do for you - you're just gullible. If you don't, then you should know exactly why I do not believe stories told about other fantastical events, like souls or gods or vampires or other supernatural creatures.

Now before you start thinking of me again as just having a closed mind... I have told you multiple times what I would require for my mind to be changed on these topics, and I have not asked for anything out of the ordinary when it comes to standards of evidence. I don't need gods or souls piled up on a table in front of me - I need situations where the best possible explanation, the one that makes the fewest assumptions and has the greatest predictive and explanatory power, is gods or souls. Personal experiences do not cut it here, because personal experiences can have a myriad of other explanations that we are unable to rule out that make fewer assumptions about reality.

Now let me ask you this again: what would it take for you to change your mind? Do you even consider it possible for someone to convince you, using any hypothetical evidence or reasoning, that the god you believe in does not exist, or that you do not have a soul? What kinds of things might do this? If you cannot answer this question, then YOU are the one who is so attached to his ideas that he will never deviate from them, and THAT is the definition of a closed mind. I am willing to deviate from my ideas if certain standards of evidence are met - the same standards nearly everyone uses in nearly every area of their life except when it comes to these kinds of beliefs, and this exception is not one I see as justified.

A watch implies a watchmaker.

It certainly does, because a watch is recognizable as a tool designed to fulfill a specific purpose. The universe, however, is not.

If you want to seriously get into the teleological argument, I'm game.

[Reccum]

This is a good thread.

Supernatural things by default cannot be explained or recreated by science. If we could prove any of them then they would just be natural. So the question is do you believe in the supernatural? I think we would all say yes, but for very different reasons.

The ongoing debate is interesting but also a bit of a derailment if this was intended to be just about peoples "ghost stories". Also the supernatural could be debated without briinging religion into it.

I gotta say that Pali makes some very good arguments in his defense. He is entitled to not believe anything you say to him that you cannot prove. It doesn't mean he is calling you a liar, he is just a skeptic, which is ok. Skeptics are here to test the faith of "believers"

If you cannot convince another that your god is real, it does not make your god less real. Go ahead and have faith, but don't judge someone else by their level of belief. Sure neither of you can prove the other right or wrong, so debate all you want but in the end you will have to agree to disagree, doesn't mean anyone has a closed mind.

[Cephirus]

I had written a long post about my beliefs and personal explanations for why I do not believe in the existance of a divine entity, however, I decided to remove it because I feel it would not be taken seriously. People tend to believe only what they want to believe in, and only when they themselves decide to investigate what that belief is, whether false or not, then will come the truth for them. They may still end up with the same belief or, as in the case of the evolution of science, their views change.

I will however discuss faith, because I feel the very idea of faith is misplaced. Faith is not religious, never has been, never will be. Faith is used by people, faith is what we as individuals believe in, and make ourselves believe. If you have faith that you are going to do well at a job interview, you are going to do that much better than if you did not have faith in yourself. Faith is important, and because faith is important, so has become religion. Religions purpose in the very beginnings was to explain. Why are we here, why do people die, where do they go, why did I become ill? All of these things are covered in each respective religious text, that I am aware of. People talk about just believing in something, however, the purpose of religion is to explain, and that should be your belief. I think the only real issue is that you should be able to question any belief. If we did not question our beliefs, we would not learn anything new, we would only except what is already there.

[Pali]

So the question is do you believe in the supernatural? I think we would all say yes' date=' but for very different reasons.[/quote']

Well, I wouldn't.

Also the supernatural could be debated without briinging religion into it.

While in one sense I would agree with you that the possible supernatural is not confined to any religious notions of it, in another I would say that a large part of why people tend to be willing to believe in the supernatural is because of religion and its influence on philosophy and society, so to a fair degree they are entwined.

[H&R]

ask the person doin' the prayin'

God doesn't owe them anything.

But do you believe in the possibility that someone who lost his leg could have it regenerated back through prayer?

In old war countries, a lot of people lose legs by stepping on mines, not to mention war veterans that lost limbs, miscarriage, people that get infections and have to amputate limbs, etc. There are plenty of cases where people have lost limbs. I just find it a bit strange that in the many, many, many stories of people getting healed through prayers, never does someone have his limb grown back.

Am I to understand that someone who lost a leg shouldn't even bother to pray for it to return? That none of these people "deserve" their limb back? That they should just embrace god and find happiness through faith and friends, when there are cases where someone who is injured can get a "miracle by god" and be completely cured? I once saw a documentary about a man with no arms and no legs from birth, which was pretty amazing to see all the things he could do. He had a wife and kids and even drove a car. He believed in god, and he had his faith and determination that kept him going. Now, I admired him, but can you imagine all the endless hours of frustration that we didn't get to see in the documentary? Do you think he ever prayed to be normal, like everyone else? I can bet you he did. But he learned to accept who he is and find his share of happiness.

Don't get me wrong, I think faith can be a very good thing, especially for people who are a bit outside society, crippled or just having a very rough time. They need something to believe in to have the strength to go on. I just find the concept of healing through prayers very flawed.

[Dead Voodoo Doll]

That none of these people "deserve" their limb back?

None of the people deserve anything. The "normal" people do not either. I don't, Pali doesn't. You either believe or you don't. Everything was a gift. Flesh was a gift. God cares about your spirit that inhabits your flesh. Sin has destroyed the flesh.

Why should God care about someone who stepped on a mine placed there by other callous people with the intent to maim and kill?

People kill people. People are so apathetic, so driven to be right, to have "it", to conquer, to fill in the blank ______. Why?

[The-Nameless]

You misunderstand H&R. It is not about what you deserve with from god. It is what God deserves from you. Why would someone unwilling to accept god's judgement be given god's favor? God will constantly test his disciples. Look at the story of King David. He ruled over a massive kingdom, but god allowed the devil to test him, to test the limits of his faith. The devil WAS able to corrupt him, and he lost everything. His kingdom, his wives, everything. It was only when he lost it all that he gave up and began living as a man of god again, where he was rewarded for enduring it all, and renewing his faith.

[The-Nameless]

You misunderstand H&R. It is not about what you deserve with from god. It is what God deserves from you. Why would someone unwilling to accept god's judgement be given god's favor? God will constantly test his disciples. Look at the story of King David. He ruled over a massive kingdom, but god allowed the devil to test him, to test the limits of his faith. The devil WAS able to corrupt him, and he lost everything. His kingdom, his wives, everything. It was only when he lost it all that he gave up and began living as a man of god again, where he was rewarded for enduring it all, and renewing his faith.

You cannot expect God to heal the wounded, then there would be no appreciation for what we have. It would be like FL.

Oh ****, my leg got chopped off

Pray "Hey, can I get this bad boy sewed back on?"

You would get shot, then from the church () ten miles away would call him on his cell phone and be like:

"You mother ****er, at least leave my ID."

then you would complain about how he took everything. Even a pen he could not have needed.

Basically you will be tried over, and over throughout your life. There will be corrupting powers all around you, and they will beset us forever. We need to come out on the other side with our faith intact. You would be surprised. People who have real faith will thank god, because it was only their leg. People who do not have faith will be bitter, and angry with God, because they lost their leg.

[jibber]

I laughed at the website H&R put up. I honestly thought it was all created for humor.

Seriously. Has anyone read into it?

And just to make myself clear..

This is amazing stuff. The dictionary defines a miracle as "An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God." [ref] So we must ask a fundamental question: Did an all-loving, all-powerful God hear the prayers from Jeanna's worldwide prayer circle and then reach down from heaven to help Jeanna? Did God actually interact with Jeanna's body, making the impossible happen and curing her case of rabies through a divine miracle?

Or did something else happen?

We can actually answer this question with a simple experiment....

A simple experiment

For this experiment, we need to find a deserving person who has had both of his legs amputated. For example, find a sincere, devout veteran of the Iraqi war, or a person who was involved in a tragic automobile accident.

Now create a prayer circle like the one created for Jeanna Giese. The job of this prayer circle is simple: pray to God to restore the amputated legs of this deserving person. I do not mean to pray for a team of renowned surgeons to somehow graft the legs of a cadaver onto the soldier, nor for a team of renowned scientists to craft mechanical legs for him. Pray that God spontaneously and miraculously restores the soldier's legs overnight, in the same way that God spontaneously and miraculously cured Jeanna Giese and Marilyn Hickey's mother.

If possible, get millions of people all over the planet to join the prayer circle and pray their most fervent prayers. Get millions of people praying in unison for a single miracle for this one deserving amputee. Then stand back and watch.

What is going to happen? Jesus clearly says that if you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer. He does not say it once -- he says it many times in many ways in the Bible.

And yet, even with millions of people praying, nothing will happen.

Uhm, really? Have you tried it genius? Didn't think so.

Again, people, if you can't prove it, it doesn't mean it isn't true. Again, hate to pick on your Pali, but the way you see the after-life as untrue, simply because you cannot prove it, or that god isn't real because once again, one can't prove it with conventional MORTAL means, doesn't mean he isn't there, or the after-life doesn't exist.

I mean, the scenario stated above.. basically states: So this little girl got cured from rabies (a previously incurable disease) for no scientific reason. There was absolutely no way to explain this, scientifically, so we pointed toward god or the divine.

So since science can't explain why this happened, I guess then science doesn't exist? Or that science is all a fallacy? If you really have an open mind, you'll know what I'm talking about and agree.

[H&R]

You are avoiding the point I'm trying to make with the whole "you need to be content with what you are to be happy"-talk. Sure it's easy to blame sin when accidents happen, etc, but everybody sins or has done sins at some level, so there is no way to point out a flaw in your belief there. Also, negativity will of course make you feel worse (in your example with the man angry about losing his leg) while if you see things positively (like believing strongly in something good) you will feel better about yourself, and maybe even feel rewarded by god? When I meet christians, they often tell me that they feel so great when they are one with god. Well, I believe they are creating that good feeling on their own through positive thinking and strong faith in good things. Anyway, that's beside the point. The point here is about flaws in healing through prayers.

You believe in the countless stories of people being miraculously healed through prayers, don't you? So why can't you believe in an amputee getting his limb returned to him? Maybe because it's physically impossible, hm?

[The-Nameless]

See you are trying to rationalize using only methods that you know right now, to try to explain the unknown. I hold that similar to teaching you algebra, then testing you on Trigonometry. You could approach the subject, but when you try to force things to work in an equation it was never meant for, nor will it ever work for, you will end up with botched results. It is not about being physically whole. It is spiritual. That leg has no effect on your relationship with god, so why is it required? You do not need 2 legs to get into heaven. You need faith. God gives you choices, and lets you live with the downsides. If the soldier who lost his legs chose to go to Iraq, why would god not let him fully comprehend his choices? Appreciation for what god gives us, and lets us keep, is what is important. Sure I am not a millionaire pretty boy who is banging a list hotties, and doing nothing all day but drive my maserati. I have a damn good life. I am married to a great woman, I have a 1 year old daughter, and six year old son, I have nearly payed off my home, I own my cars, I have a motorcycle. God has given me a great many things that I am undeniably thankful for. Sure my mother is nearly terminal with Leukemia, and I had a very rough start in life. I have had very close people to me die, and I have had guns pointed in my face, been in bad car crashes etc etc. My house burned down two weeks before christmas, 2 days later literally I was in a wreck in the mountains 600 miles from my home town in a place that I knew noone. I walked from the hospital with a garbage full of glass/splinter covered clothes, and cracked ribs. I have no clue how far I walked, but a sheriff did pick me up after passing me twice. He took me to a motel, went in and talked to them. They gave me a room, even though my wallet was lost somewhere along the side of I-40 in cold mtn north carolina. THey never asked for money, offered me "continental breakfast" In the room, above the TV was a painting. Now usually in almost all pictures of "jesus" he is a somber looking man with eyes that project compassion when you look at them, and think. The picture I saw? A picture of Jesus with his arms open, seemingly walking towards me with a large smile on his face. You can say Irony, you can say anecdotal.

A soldiers loss of a limb is terrible, and I offer my regrets that someone's lifestyle was so drastically changed. I do not think that he should get a prayer circle. Just like wishing, you need to think about what you pray for.

I prayed for patience, and regardless of the manner how, I was granted it.

That same soldier might have prayed to go home. He was taken home

If you ask god for something, consider what your requesting. Because you will not just be handed it. If you pray for wealth, a pile of gold won't just poofin. You will be given the opportunity to earn your money. You have to meet him halfway. Halfway is NOT asking for it. The truth is people rarely know what they actually want. They think they know, but in general we have 0 clue what we actually need.

[Cephirus]

See you are trying to rationalize using only methods that you know right now

True that it does takes different approaches to different things to identify them, that does not preclude that there is something there and we should believe in it. The only thing that tells us we should believe in a god is other people. No animal is seen praying, and while manti may look it, it is purely anatomical coincidence. True, the universe is immensely vast, and unknown to us, leaving open possibilities for nearly everything. If there happens to be some form of a divine entity out there, I doubt it is anything like what we make it up to be. Also, does it not seem odd that in the Old Testament god is very jealous and vengeful, but in the new testament you are lead to believe that he will forgive and smile upon you. Also, the very idea of an afterlife is only brought up in the New Testament, the Old Testament does not even broach the subject, there is no defining of what happens after a person dies and for very, very good reasons. Also of interest, you will not find a single portion of the Old Testament where it states that a person Worshipped God. They spoke with him, bartered, and received warnings, but never prayed. Sacrifices were made to god, and when the second Temple was destroyed, the people look to the priests to figure out what to do. They wanted to keep god happy and offer sacrifice, but had no immediate means, so thus developed the tradition of sacrifice via lips... through prayer. This was nothing that was told to the people by god, but the choice of the priests of that time. Coincidentally, this is also where many of the strict divisions also came about, specifically separating men and women.

As for supernatural beliefs, many of them are rooted in and off of religious beliefs. However, I have watched ghost hunters, been to every haunted house/park/place that I have had the opportunity, and nothing ever happens? Is it because I do not believe anything will happen? That seems very illogical, for someone to believe in something, that have to have a reason, something that makes them want to believe in it. For everyone that believes that the dead send messages or what have you, they benefit from it, it helps them deal with things that go on in their life, gives reason and hope, even if it is only imagined and made up. People always have, and unfortunately it seems like they always will lie. I know I have done it, and when it has happened, people are prone to go along with it, even build upon the lie in some attempt to make it true or at least appear so. To say that because we cannot test something, that is proof that it must exist is ludicrous, because we cannot test it currently, does not mean in the future we will not be able to. However, what it does mean is that we cannot prove it also to exist, so why should we believe it, and force others to do the same? People do not suffer for not believing in god, we are not stricken with plagues or disease any less so then those that do.