if a still photo of something blurry is enough evidence for lekatt, how about a video? it’s even country specific since ghosts in Japan are usually drawn like smoke.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mc4sQT_2GGE at about 10:47
Its evidence. It’s not evidence. It seems like debating in bad faith.
It’s also a warning. Do better.
I’ve had many problems with people calling the third person in the trinity the Holy Ghost instead of the Holy Spirit. The word itself came into being in the authorized King James era of the 1500’s and many people still use it, but the word ghost simply means spirit.
In order to see spirit things you have to be in the spirit. No one has succeeded yet in explaining spirit thing’s to non spiritual people with the words crazy being attached to most people that see angels, ghost or spirits.
Elijah told his replacement Elisha that he could have anything he requested of him before he left seeing’s how the prophet Elijah was a great and mighty man of God. Elisha asked that he could have twice the spiritual gift that Elijah had. Elijah said that this was a very hard thing to ask for, but if Elisha were to see Elijah leave the earth then Elisha would have what he has asked for.
2 Kings 2:9-12 NKJV
That’s just a standard “you just aren’t enlightened enough to see it” handwave that get used to defend everything from religious claims to pseudoscience like psychic powers & N-rays. Plenty of people have succeeded “in explaining spirit thing’s to non spiritual people”; we just don’t buy it.
This is a tautology designed to stop people from asking for real evidence. It shouldn’t be respected.
Sure they have. I understand perfectly well what ghosts and angels and spirits are. The general idea is not complicated. The problem is that you can’t do is convince me they’re real based on the paltry evidence that exists and you can’t convince me to overlook all the problems with the laws of physics and so on that are tied up in these concepts.
Yes, science has. You just refuse to believe it. Before you post another idiotic statement, you, seriously, need to read The Demon Haunted World, by Carl Sagan, which has been suggested to you countless times before.
Just remember, Sagan is Love.
Demons are incorporeal entities that usually make use of the incense smoke present during the ritual to manifest. The voice would come from it and not the conjuror.
The best form of evidence, as I’ve already stated earlier on, can only be derived from the PERSONAL participation of the skeptic in the actual ritual with a contemporary practitioner.
If “the word ghost simply means spirit,” what is wrong with calling the “Holy Spirit” the “Holy Ghost”?
No, that’s not what Elisha asked for at all. He asked for “the double portion” of Elijah’s gifts, meaning “the largest share.” The term was usually used for inheritance: The oldest son would get “the double portion” / “the largest share,” so by asking for it, Elisha makes clear that he sees himself as, or wishes to be seen as, Elijah’s son, or successor.
In other words: Elisha did not wish to be twice as great as Elijah, or gain twice his “spiritual gift”; he wished, instead, and rather more humbly, to follow in Elijah’s footsteps as a loyal son / worthy successor.
I recently came across this charming tidbit:
From Angels of Light? Sanctity and the Discernment of Spirits in the Early Modern Period, edited by Clare Copeland and Jan Machielsen.
A very lovely anthology, BTW, dealing with how folks way back then would wrestle with the very tricky - and very important! - question of how to tell the difference between a demon and an angel.
That’s a proposition. Evidence would be you providing a cite that showed that such had happened, and the name of the skeptic this had happened to.
Do you have any evidence for your initial proposition?
Who told you this, and by what authority does this person speak?
Actually, that’d be an anecdote. How to actually gather evidence for something like this is difficult. Maybe a microphone on the voice box of the conjurer and another one elsewhere, to ensure that the conjurer actually did not say it. But if the best form of evidence involves personal experience of an occurrence basically designed to mess with the viewer’s perceptions, with all manner of psychological tricks in a situation that is hard to wrap your head around for most people. If the best you can offer is personal experience, then that’s not good enough. Not by a long shot.
For that matter, do Saints exist?
Let’s not get off track. I’m not asking thepillar how to gather evidence-I’m asking for the evidence itself. A particular claim was made by thepillar, and I’d like to see the evidence for that claim.
Ah, fair enough. Should’ve read more carefully. 
“Yes,” in that historically attested people have been canonized by the Catholic Church.
“Maybe,” in the sense that there is obviously no way of knowing whether God (if he/she/it exists) really considers any or all of these self-same people “true” saints, or even goes along with the whole “sainthood” concept in the first place.
whoosh.
Damnit. What did I miss?
The name of the poster Peter Morris was responding to. 
Czarcasm was replying to something by Simon Templar.
Simon Templar is a fictional detective also known as the Saint.
:smack:
I’ve even seen that show. It ran on Swedish TV in the late 90’s, presumably as some kind of 60’s nostalgia thing. Or maybe it was just because the fella drives a badass Volvo… Or both. Most likely both.