Hitch is dead

Sex hardly sounds physical?
I think you need to have "the talk" with your parents... Yes, this particular ghost seems to be monogamous. Again, you're simply dismissing reality. Many, many people have "changed their world view" because of it.
If you're comparing with mainstream religions - it's only a difference between popularity and social acceptance. Yes, such "more balanced articles providing possible scientific explanations" exist for the resurrection and all the Biblical stories as well.Does that mean the resurrection is now less likely to have occurred? And the term "resurrected" is synonymous with "zombie."
Using derogatory terms should be frowned upon, not encouraged.The claims here are all about the ghost/poltergeist doing physical things: being physically seen (just like Jesus); being physically touched (just like Jesus); physically affecting the environment around them (just like Jesus.)You can use whatever term you prefer - it doesn't take away from the physical similarities. And there are many, larger religious sites that promote the resurrection of Jesus Christ that gain a much larger profit than this as well.Are you equally arguing that the resurrection is any less real because of that? Are you talking about people believing in ghosts?
Or people believing in the resurrection of Jesus Christ?Because this kind of statement, again, equally applies to both. In the case of the Mackenzie Poltergeist, we know from Scottish historic records that no one thought the poltergeist would happen, and were surprised by it.This doesn't seem to add much credence, to either story. Again, you could be talking about the Mackenzie Poltergeist or The Resurrection here - seems equally appropriate. I can guarantee you that more people have read the Bible and had their world view changed away from believing in Jesus Christ - then people have heard about the Mackenzie Poltergeist and had their world view changed away from ghosts.Does this imply the Mackenzie Poltergeist is more likely to be real than the resurrection of Jesus Christ? The are in exactly the same category. Your reasons do not apply, and only include you mis-characterizing things.
Why is "Jesus Christ being physically seen and physically affecting reality after death" not in the same category as "the Mackenzie Poltergeist being physically seen and physically affecting reality after death?"The only difference you have is one of popularity and social acceptance.
Differences known to have zero effect on "likelihood of being real." Except, of course, for the Mackenzie Poltergeist.
You can even visit the place yourself and see.
Can't seem to be able to do that with Jesus Christ's resurrection.Does this make the Mackenzie Poltergeist more likely to be real? The accounts of the resurrection are open to consideration regardless of life being the result of intelligence or not.
And full-on Jesus-Christ-like resurrections do not depend one way or another on materialistic or atheistic beliefs.Reality is whatever it is.
GDR's beliefs may place restrictions on what GDR thinks about reality.
However, Stile's atheistic "beliefs" do not place restrictions on reality at all, in fact they PROMOTE that "reality is whatever reality is" and we become aware of whatever we're capable of learning.Your projections of your beliefs limiting your ability to accept reality onto others is very telling about how your personal beliefs shape your own "world-view" apart from "reality."

Hmm.. it is the ghost part that isn't ,but I think you know that. Sure. I have read books and listened to debates on the subject. The natural explanations are based on the belief that we know it can't have happened and so we know it didn't. As I said earlier, that if we are the result of intelligence then there is reason to believe that the resurrection, as told by the first generation of Christ's followers, can be considered as being historical. Yes ,these accounts are about non-physical beings. The resurrected Jesus was a physical being. That isn't the case. When Jesus was crucified all of his followers assumed that Jesus was simply another failed messiah and they had gone back to their fishingetc, and out of fear had disassociated themselves with the movement. Even after the resurrection, as we can see in Acts 1, they were still thinking that Jesus was going, using the power of Yahweh, to kick the Romans out of their nation. Sure, but that wasn't the case with the first generation of followers, and in fact there was a cost to be paid. It was after Constantine came along that the whole thing went off the rails and Christianity became a route to power, influence and wealth. Firstly that is an opinion, and something that you can't guarantee. However that isn't the point. The first generation didn't have a Bible. What they had was the personal experience of Jesus, or the accounts of the eyewitnesses of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. because you are talking about people physically seeing things that aren't physical. I'm not. I have never said otherwise. I simply said that if we are the result of intelligence then we can be open to the possibility. My theistic beliefs allow me to accept the possibility of resurrection.
Atheistic beliefs reject the possibility. When you’re dead you stay dead, (not talking about resuscitation), without external interference.

So were the Three Bears - but they were fictional physical beings. That's not a close connection to real physical beings.

No it isn't. Stile has already agreed that the writers of the Gospels believed that their accounts were essentially accurate, which does not mean that they didn't use metaphor or even hyperbole. They are intended to be understood as historical or non-fiction accounts.In these accounts the resurrected Jesus is physical, albeit as a renewed physicality.That does not mean that they weren't wrong, but it does show that we can't say the resurrection accounts can be classified in the same way as accounts intended as fictional.

Some people are great at hypothetical arguments of logic and evidence yet do not understand that there are basically two different kinds of spirits. One is the Creative Spirit of the Creator of all seen and unseen. We are commanded to test the spirits and can discern the type of any we encounter based on the content of their presence and how we respond to it and interact with it.And this is where jar and ringo are correct. The only way that it could ever be determined which spirit I operate under is by my works and what I do.of course, some do not recognize the Holy Spirit as any different than a ghost in a house. One difference is that a ghost would not have the power to brainwash an entire audience. The Holy Spirit would, but likely would not resort to manipulation and control. The Holy Spirit draws all men towards God. It remains their decision to allow or resist such a call.

First off Phat I’d really like to thank you for the work you do as a moderator and the even handed way in which you do it. I recently had a discussion with Tangle where I essentially equated spiritual influence to one of Dawkins’ memes. There are the the obvious memes that impact our lives, such as when we have our hearts and minds changed by listening to a talk, reading something that has an impact on us, the way we are raised etc. I contend that the Holy Spirit is essentially a God meme in pretty much the way you describe it although I think that I would nuance it a little differently. I would say that the Holy Spirit draws all people to the loving nature of God, which is best understood in the Golden Rule. In order to be drawn to any specific religious belief, it takes a meme from a physical or human source.From a Christian perspective we can see people convinced of the existence of the God of Christianity at an intellectual level, but largely left untouched by the Holy Spirit of that God. Conversely we can see people that intellectually reject Christianity but accept the Holy Spirit by responding to that call to the Golden Rule. Both of us would agree that it is better to be in both camps, but if it is only one or the other I’d go with the second option, which I would contend is consistent with the fundamental theme of the New Testament.

The authors' supposed intentions are not a major factor in deciding whether an account IS fictional. We classify an account as fictional if it fails to meet the standards of reality.

Spirits are fictional. You can make up as many kinds ad you want.

You dont know that claim. At best you can say that I dont know it either, but you cant stand on a claim that has not been proven or disproved. That won't fly here.

Yes I can. Without evidence, the default is that it doesn't exist. You use the same standard for Tooth Fairies, leprechauns, etc. so don't try to claim special privilege for your pet beliefs.

I will claim special privilege. There is only One God. You are free to attempt toi question it, disprove it, laugh at it or ignore it, but you wont force me to retract my claim. If I didn't speak up, the rocks would cry out and you would be stuck trying to disprove what you heard.

Nobody's asking you to retract your claim. I'm just pointing out that your claim is invalid.

Of course you know my belief..or perhaps know of it...I could argue that you never have experienced it and you could argue that my experience is at best subjective and you are attempting to objectively discuss these matters. I respect that and have always respected your methodology and argumentative approach.I personally believe that there is one Holy Spirit and a plethora of spirits. There is in my opinion a distinct difference.I looked up your Poltergeist reports and found another one on my own. My Brush With A Ghost As I have discussed before, on this forum, I have believed that I encountered supernatural (or perhaps best described as unexplained evidence of such activity. Anecdotally, I have seen weird church services, but never counted them as subjective proof since I myself never felt directly involved with what I was observing. I will talk more, but I must go to work now. In closing, I do agree with GDR in that the Holy Spirit had a body--Jesus Christ, and none of the spirits come preassembled with a body...they simply seek and need our bodies through which to manifest...though they can manifest in sound and in movement of objects...anecdotally.

And I disagree. You dont get to determine validity except perhaps tentatively until more evidence is found. Your argument is no better than mine. Its one mans word against anthers. Unless of course the forum dismisses my personal experience as invalid. I suppose you all could do that, though its not cricket. Im not sure why we have that rule and would challenge it on the Faith & Belief side of the Forum. Evidence is only the default in the Science side of the Forum.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

The Gospels were written by either an eye witness or by someone with direct access to the eyewitnesses. They wrote what they believed to be historically accurate, even though there was in all likelihood some metaphor or hyperbole included in that. That has been agreed upon.That makes them works of non-fiction in the same way that we can understand any historical accounts. It is not proof of their accuracy. We can choose to argue about what if any of it is historically accurate, as again, we can with any historical account but it is not a work of the imagination as required for a fictional account.