I saw something i can not explain

[George-ananda]

Di

Difficult to say for sure but i looked him in his eyes today, he did look back. And he did not disapear as soon as yesterday, i did look at the grave stones around where i stood but non of them was very old.

This is outstanding. To me this, with an independent witness, kind of trumps all that philosophical/psychological wrangling going on in this thread.

If it was me, I would encourage further contact but I'm not sure of exactly how I would do it.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I've heard of a type of haunting, it has a specific name but it escapes me, one I should know... but there is a type of haunting where an apparition repeats itself over and over and in the same movements, without having a real awareness to it. This could happen each day, each week, or maybe a couple times a year, maybe.

The thing i see look free to move around and not stuck in time or one place

 

[Kooky]

It disapearded right in front of me it was no dude in costume

Perhaps it was a time traveller with a (potentially malfunctioning) cloaking device who mistook the 21st century for the 12th.

 

[George-ananda]

I've heard of a type of haunting, it has a specific name but it escapes me, one I should know... but there is a type of haunting where an apparition repeats itself over and over and in the same movements, without having a real awareness to it. This could happen each day, each week, or maybe a couple times a year, maybe.

You're thinking I think of a 'Residual Haunting'. However this knight seemed to make eye contact with the OP so it could be something more advanced than a residual haunting.

 

[Spirit of Light]

This is outstanding. To me this, with an independent witness, kind of trumps all that philosophical/psychological wrangling going on in this thread.

If it was me, I would encourage further contact but I'm not sure of exactly how I would do it.

My thought when i saw him today was, i see you, if you see me i am open to see you again.

I know it is a risk of doing it. But he has not followed me after work.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Perhaps it was a time traveller with a (potentially malfunctioning) cloaking device who mistook the 21st century for the 12th.

I can not say for sure

 

[George-ananda]

21st century for the 12th.

A dyslexic knight you are suggesting, lol

He's thinking, damn digit flipping

 

[George-ananda]

but when i tried take a photo i was unable to catch him on the picture

Be prepared to keep trying. I'm no expert but phones also have something like a 'burst mode' where they take successive pictures almost instantaneously.

Maybe the next stage is photo contact???

 

[Spirit of Light]

Be prepared to keep trying. I'm no expert but phones also have something like a 'burst mode' where they take successive pictures almost instantaneously.

Maybe the next stage is photo contact???

Only time can tell
I do not know what to think right now
What is it that i see, i need more answer from that thing

 

[George-ananda]

Only time can tell
I do not know what to think right now
What is it that i see, i need more answer from that thing

Please give us updates You got my interest now!

 

[Spirit of Light]

Please give us updates You got my interest now!

I will if i see it again

 

[F1fan]

Who holds the definition of how things are, though?

It's we humans who apply our intellect by using reason, facts, and an objective methodology to understand what is true about what we observe. This is an exceptionally successful approach.

How do you do that when their reality is their view of the objective world?

Well it's not that difficult to be objective. The biggest challenge at the individual level is those who have learned assumptions that are not fact-based, like religious views. All the person has to do to be a scientist is learn the discipline to set aside these assumptions and do proper work.

If you take a whole village of people who was born, raised, and will die in their beliefs and their objective reality incorporates the supernatural, unless "we know the keys to reality" whose to say they are wrong and we are right?

First a supernatural is neither objective nor reality. So if a person is assuming a supernatural is those things they aren't thinking rationally. If there is a village who isn't functioning at a modern level then they aren't going to integrate if they need to progress. But there are still a lot of primitive societies on the planet. They're free to be who they are.

Most cultures so told don't separate spirituality and, how to say, the material world. That separation is foreign-it's all one reality and objectivity is and in many communities based on those supernatural characteristics. So how do they question it insofar they have no basis in comparison to know whose right and whose wrong?

You are probably referring to ancient traditions of belief that were never based on fact. You seem to be confusing meaning with a fact-based understanding of how things are.

To many how things are incorporates spiritual things. Dogma or traditions are used to understand or put structure to it but doesn't negate its incorporation to life if not in itself defines it.

Illusions and belief do not imply an understanding of reality. Again you are confusing illusory belief and meaning with understanding what is factually true about how things are.

There's nothing wrong with this unless one who believes in god believes that god controls the laws of physics. If it's just awe and finding meaning to the workings of the physical universe and its signify, that's fine. In other words, if it is the god of the gaps, I can see some irrationality in it but in itself is harmless. If it's just putting meaning to the physical universe, its both rational and harmless.

The USA has creationists who are actively opposing the teaching of evolution in public schools. That's not harmless.

Or think of kids growing up in creationist households who then to to school and feel serious conflict from what they learn. That's harm.

I don't believe this should be an issue if it doesn't lead them to harm anyone. In and of itself, it's a harmless association. I don't feel the need to pop someone's bubble unless I'm saying I know everything about life to determine what they "should" believe and not believe-which is exactly what a lot of believers do vis versa.

So it's OK to tell children false traditional things that aren't true? How does that benefit them?

I can see that. I also see people ask questions to learn more about themselves in a place of an unknown universe. Helps with their sanity.

So if there is a problem with sanity don't you think it better to explain what is true about how things are instead of confusing them with untrue beliefs, that they might learn later are untrue?

I don't believe you got what I'm saying.

Skeptics want knowns and want facts to compare what is accurate and what is not based on those known factors. So, they can't do anything with what they don't know (an X factor) so they put it aside.

Non-skeptics have that X factor, that unknown, incorporated in their lives. They don't need to compare, contrast, and prove when the "mystery of life" is something they believe they need to accept regardless the language, dogma, or traditions in which they use to explain it.

The only people I can think of that use god of the gaps over medicine is JW (and another group I can't think of at the moment) when it comes to blood transfusions or medical treatments in general. All believers I know so far will say god has something to do with whether blessing or not children's sickness but not insofar they will opt for that god of the gaps from treatment. Their belief gives them solace but not to where they don't let doctors treat their illness.

I do believe most non-skeptic god believers believe their child died of Leukemia. How they deal with it and explaining agency because of their grief makes sense. That doesn't mean they don't understand how life and death works.

The only topic I remember non-skeptics saying "god did it" without any outside influence are miracles.

I haven't met creationists before. Most people I know believe they don't know how god made the space and the universe, the big bang, or something along the lines of an invisible force.

You're all over the map here but the bottom line is religious beliefs aren't based on fact or reason. These are frameworks don't contribute to a factual understating of how things are. All I'm saying is that people should understand this.

If it helps them live in the world, yes... especially when it comes to the sciences.

You don't have to. I don't either. I understand what they mean by god-experience but using that term and using it as an label to my experience makes me uncomfortable. That doesn't mean others believe anything more irrational than I do because I chose not to use that language and see it from their perspective. Non-skeptics even think I am like them because of how I experience things... we as humans we have something in common... but using dogma and spiritual terms to describe it and god of the gaps are harmless. I see it rational as a psychological and cultural need not a scientific one.

When someone describes an experience with God and what they actually describe is mimicking religious behavior they heard others talk about, then we can conclude they didn't have an authentic experience with an actual God that exists outside of imagination. What I find interesting objectively about religious behavior is how otherwise rational people can become absorbed in an illusory experience that they create themselves, but are not aware they are creating it. Now you might come back with asking how I know they are creating these experiences. It's because we have examples all around us to observe and question, and the one consistency is how the claims tend to mimic the pattern of belief of those around them despite a diversity of types of experiences of God. Plus we would think that if an ordinary mortal had an authentic experience with an actual God that their understanding, awareness, spiritual depth, etc. would become incredibly profound and deep. Instead we see those most certain they had an experience being shallow and dogmatic.

To my mind if someone is going to claim spiritual depth it.s not going to be a person lost in a head full of dogma, rather those who have compassion, empathy, who have a deep understanding of what humans are capable of from a moral perspective, who express love for others, have a good sense of humor, are in intellectual, physical, and emotional balance. Those who are dogmatic and superficial in their religious belief strike me as the antithesis of spiritual.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Just wanted to add a picture of the church where the graveyeard i working on is
And the Ghostly knight was seen next to this church

 

[Hockeycowboy]

At work today at the cemetary i saw something that i can not explain.
During my work i was focused on the task, and when i looked up i dag what i can 8nly explain as similar to a knights templar in full armor, i do not directly believe what i saw is possible. But i know what i saw was a "real" sight but i can not explain it.
I did not think of ghosts or templars or Even about dead people.

How could it be just my imagination?
If it was a real sight of sort, what the heck did i see

I honestly dont not have a clue

I do have a question about this incident, though.... you specifically mention a “Knights Templar.”

You know how to identify a Templar, from other knights? (Because there were several different ones.)

Or did you just mean it was a person in armor?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

It's we humans who apply our intellect by using reason, facts, and an objective methodology to understand what is true about what we observe. This is an exceptionally successful approach.


Well it's not that difficult to be objective. The biggest challenge at the individual level is those who have learned assumptions that are not fact-based, like religious views. All the person has to do to be a scientist is learn the discipline to set aside these assumptions and do proper work.


First a supernatural is neither objective nor reality. So if a person is assuming a supernatural is those things they aren't thinking rationally. If there is a village who isn't functioning at a modern level then they aren't going to integrate if they need to progress. But there are still a lot of primitive societies on the planet. They're free to be who they are.


You are probably referring to ancient traditions of belief that were never based on fact. You seem to be confusing meaning with a fact-based understanding of how things are.




Illusions and belief do not imply an understanding of reality. Again you are confusing illusory belief and meaning with understanding what is factually true about how things are.





The USA has creationists who are actively opposing the teaching of evolution in public schools. That's not harmless.

Or think of kids growing up in creationist households who then to to school and feel serious conflict from what they learn. That's harm.




So it's OK to tell children false traditional things that aren't true? How does that benefit them?




So if there is a problem with sanity don't you think it better to explain what is true about how things are instead of confusing them with untrue beliefs, that they might learn later are untrue?



You're all over the map here but the bottom line is religious beliefs aren't based on fact or reason. These are frameworks don't contribute to a factual understating of how things are. All I'm saying is that people should understand this.



When someone describes an experience with God and what they actually describe is mimicking religious behavior they heard others talk about, then we can conclude they didn't have an authentic experience with an actual God that exists outside of imagination. What I find interesting objectively about religious behavior is how otherwise rational people can become absorbed in an illusory experience that they create themselves, but are not aware they are creating it. Now you might come back with asking how I know they are creating these experiences. It's because we have examples all around us to observe and question, and the one consistency is how the claims tend to mimic the pattern of belief of those around them despite a diversity of types of experiences of God. Plus we would think that if an ordinary mortal had an authentic experience with an actual God that their understanding, awareness, spiritual depth, etc. would become incredibly profound and deep. Instead we see those most certain they had an experience being shallow and dogmatic.

To my mind if someone is going to claim spiritual depth it.s not going to be a person lost in a head full of dogma, rather those who have compassion, empathy, who have a deep understanding of what humans are capable of from a moral perspective, who express love for others, have a good sense of humor, are in intellectual, physical, and emotional balance. Those who are dogmatic and superficial in their religious belief strike me as the antithesis of spiritual.

^^Here is a true materialist, one who thinks that inanimate, undirected processes account for all the order we observe, and that evolution with its mindless mechanisms has created complex, symbiotic living systems.^^

 

[F1fan]

^^Here is a true materialist, one who thinks that inanimate, undirected processes account for all the order we observe, and that evolution with its mindless mechanisms has created complex, symbiotic living systems.^^

There are quite a few of us well educated people.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I do have a question about this incident, though.... you specifically mention a “Knights Templar.”

You know how to identify a Templar, from other knights? (Because there were several different ones.)

Or did you just mean it was a person in armor?

I do know about the red cross on the chest of the knights templar yes.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I do know about the red cross on the chest of the knights templar yes.

Ok, so that was the identifying mark you saw!
Thank you for your candidness!
There’s many on here, I’m sure, that wouldn’t be willing to discuss an experience like that, fearing accusations of.....

they aren't thinking rationally. .

Not that you said it was supernatural, @Conscious thoughts , but at least you’re open minded about the possibility.

It’s arrogance, to be closed-minded regarding things unexplained.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Ok, so that was the identifying mark you saw!
Thank you for your candidness!
There’s many on here, I’m sure, that wouldn’t be willing to discuss an experience like that, fearing accusations of.....




Not that you said it was supernatural, @Conscious thoughts , but at least you’re open minded about the possibility.

It’s arrogance, to be closed-minded regarding things unexplained.

I have realize that there was other groups of knights at the time around 1000-1200 AD that also used a form of cross on their knight uniform. So maybe knights templar is a wrong identifier, but at the time of the OP was made knights templar was the only way i was able to describe what i saw

Honestly i am not afraid of being riddiculed or told i only saw what i imagine it to be People can say and have their opinion about it, and it is ok to me.
And i have become more openminded to the things i do not know or can not explain