NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm sure this will get major play in all the evangelical circles--not--but it was interesting to me to see a pretty big name make a claim like this. This is from an article in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/features/lifestyle/sfl-mosesjan19,0,1475491.story):
Sperling contends that if traditional accounts of the origins of Judaism had not recorded a founder, "analogy would have required postulating him; and that is probably what happened" when ancients wrote the Bible.

That's one of the more important assertions in the newly issued second edition of the Encyclopaedia Judaica (Macmillan Reference, 22 volumes, $1,995). Of the monumental work's 21,000-plus articles, 2,600 are new and nearly half were updated from the 1972 original.

The introduction to Moses' life (from another writer) says "we cannot really reconstruct a biography of Moses. We cannot even be sure that Moses was a historical character." The 1972 edition was less skeptical.

Not that the second edition's attitude is odd in academic or Jewish intellectual circles nowadays. Conservative Judaism's official Torah commentary (2001) says that what should concern Jews is "not when, or even if, Moses lived, but what his life conveys in Israel's saga." It calls Moses a "folkloristic, national hero."
I quoted a section this long because it covers two major points of view. The statement by a Rabbi from the Reform Jewish movement wasn't so surprising, but the quote from the Conservative Judaism's official Torah commentary did surprise me, because it looks at the life of Moses in a sane way, that Moses was an earlier version of someone like King Arthur, more legend than man.

If Moses doesn't exist, maybe God, Jesus, and Statn don't either.

Nahhhh. Wouldn't go down well with the fundies.

May not have existed?

Good. One more thing to prove that religion is silly. Believing in a person that never existed...

ZOMG... this automatically negates all of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam at one stroke! :eek:

And while we're talking about holy books, Kryozerkia, that GMC quote in your sig is straight out of 1 Sarcasms 7:13. Of course, Sarcasms is so common these days that no-one attributes it anymore, but just as a reference, it's one of the Apocrypha.

Of course Mooses exist. Unless Rocky the Squirrel has been cavorting with an Elk all these years...

ok, so you have one group saying he might not have existed. Its like one group of scientists saying "The sun might not be a big ball of flaming gas" when indeed everyone else already knows it is.

But it's not (http://www.kronia.com/electric.html).I always wonder where folks dig up such utter crap... :rolleyes:

Its like one group of scientists saying "The sun might not be a big ball of flaming gas" when indeed everyone else already knows it is.

*Sighs*

But it's not (http://www.kronia.com/electric.html).

*Sighs*

But it's not (http://www.kronia.com/electric.html).

P'wned.

Anyway, this is cool but not really important.

It doesn't matter how many facts or how much evidence you can throw at Fundies... If it anit in a two thousand year old text, it aint true.

ok, so you have one group saying he might not have existed. Its like one group of scientists saying "The sun might not be a big ball of flaming gas" when indeed everyone else already knows it is.

That's a false analogy and you know it, Zilam. Historical evidence for most Biblical figures that weren't already confirmed historical figures is minute at best, especially when it comes to figures like Moses and Jesus.

I always wonder where folks dig up such utter crap... :rolleyes:

Teh Interweb is your friend. A veritable treasure-trove of crap for the taking...

ZOMG... this automatically negates all of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam at one stroke! :eek:

And while we're talking about holy books, Kryozerkia, that GMC quote in your sig is straight out of 1 Sarcasms 7:13. Of course, Sarcasms is so common these days that no-one attributes it anymore, but just as a reference, it's one of the Apocrypha.Only the for the Christians and Muslims. The Jews are just fine. Linky (http://www.catandgirl.com/view.php?loc=417). The Jews didn't believe it in the first place. They just needed some sort of hobby to use up all the free time they had after they escaped from Pharoah.

Only the for the Christians and Muslims. The Jews are just fine. Linky (http://www.catandgirl.com/view.php?loc=417). The Jews didn't believe it in the first place. They just needed some sort of hobby to use up all the free time they had after they escaped from Pharoah....or were thrown out. They indeed had some time on their hands and nothing useful to do. Also did funny things to their dicks then... :rolleyes:

*Sighs*

But it's not (http://www.kronia.com/electric.html).

I hate you :p

I saw about moses the same thing i say about Jesus.

It's quite possible that there was someone KINDA like him, who did a few things vaguely resembling him...

I wouldn't consider it at all unlikely that there was someone who lead a slave revolt in Egypt who managed to escape along with several other slaves. THat seems to me perfectly plausable.

Likewise I don't find it at all unlikely that a jewish fellow around 2000 years ago wandered around the empire preaching good will to all mankind, and managed to get himself executed for it, again this isn't at all unlikely or implausable.

Over time however those stories, embellished through retelling and intentionally altered to suit goals, became something far more.

I think there was a core person upon whom the legend of Moses was based on, much like I believe it's likely there was a person upon whom Jesus Christ is modeled loosely on.

Are the current portrayals of either figure even remotely accurate? No, probably not.

Are the current portrayals of either figure even remotely accurate? No, probably not.

I disagree. The Bible can usually be found in the nonfiction section of bookstores, which would imply that it's a work of nonfiction. If so, it's true, and thus everything written within its pages, including any apparent contradictions (which doublethink takes care of anyway), is true as well.

Well, it makes more sense than the other argument people use, which is that it was written by an invisible entity, located inside all of us as well in an apparently centralised specific location, who only left evidence of its existence within the pages of that book and somehow is considered to be capable of writing only absolute truth.

I don't think it really matters; the Torah was constructed over thousands of years by a number of different people anyways, so it's not like it would seriously affect anything if Moses were a construct of multiple figures or a real person.

The Jews don't literally interpret the Bible or see it as completely infallible, so it doesn't pose a particular threat to the validity of their beliefs or anything.

I disagree. The Bible can usually be found in the nonfiction section of bookstores, which would imply that it's a work of nonfiction. If so, it's true, and thus everything written within its pages, including any apparent contradictions (which doublethink takes care of anyway), is true as well.

All religious texts are usually placed in nonfiction, along with mythology. These texts are not really capable of being classified as either, because the entire point of myth is to convey spiritual or moral ideas in a set of stories that may or may not be literally true. The actual historical "truth" of a myth is meaningless, since the point is the content itself.

And, given that the Bible does contain a lot of historical and cultural information, it probably is a valid work of nonfiction.

The Jews don't literally interpret the Bible or see it as completely infallible..Somehow that's even more scary. Because instead of blaming all the evil deeds on circumstances of the respective ages they create a history as they would want it and as it should have been. Including their murderous god, who names himself jealousy.

All religious texts are usually placed in nonfiction, along with mythology. These texts are not really capable of being classified as either, because the entire point of myth is to convey spiritual or moral ideas in a set of stories that may or may not be literally true. The actual historical "truth" of a myth is meaningless, since the point is the content itself.

And, given that the Bible does contain a lot of historical and cultural information, it probably is a valid work of nonfiction.
My recent experience is that religious texts are now generally in a section all their own, with no claims made as to whether or not they're considered fiction. The Bible does contain a lot of historical information, largely inaccurate and contradicted by archaeological finds--it's the cultural information that's probably the most valuable.

My recent experience is that religious texts are now generally in a section all their own, with no claims made as to whether or not they're considered fiction. The Bible does contain a lot of historical information, largely inaccurate and contradicted by archaeological finds--it's the cultural information that's probably the most valuable.

And of particular value in the study of Moose (& Squirrel).

If Moses doesn't exist then who was that on South Park the other day?

History and mythology alike are only useful in as much as they give us advice or inspiration on how to live the present. With that in mind, whether a given piece of text is one or the other is irrelevant.

So who cares if Moses didn't exist? Does that make the story of the liberation of a people any less/more interesting or inspiring?

History and mythology alike are only useful in as much as they give us advice or inspiration on how to live the present. With that in mind, whether a given piece of text is one or the other is irrelevant.

So who cares if Moses didn't exist? Does that make the story of the liberation of a people any less/more interesting or inspiring?
It's important because if Moses didn't exist, then by definition, the Bible is not infallible, and that should make a difference to anyone whose entire faith is based on that idea, and frighteningly enough, that's a pretty significant segment of christianity worldwide, especially in the US.

It's important because if Moses didn't exist, then by definition, the Bible is not infallible, and that should make a difference to anyone whose entire faith is based on that idea, and frighteningly enough, that's a pretty significant segment of christianity worldwide, especially in the US.
Neat. If it wasn't for the simple pre-postulation of a belief to the contrary, the initial bit of thinking would have been valid. An interesting problem in race-condition metathinking.

My recent experience is that religious texts are now generally in a section all their own, with no claims made as to whether or not they're considered fiction. The Bible does contain a lot of historical information, largely inaccurate and contradicted by archaeological finds--it's the cultural information that's probably the most valuable.

Usually, yes, because they're not fiction and not nonfiction.

Personally, I would consider them "mythology" (in the academic sense), but given the negative stigma that term conveys in the vernacular, it's not a good idea for a number of reasons. Obviously, that's generally why libraries give it it's own section, for fear of conveying the wrong message about what those texts actually are.

Usually, yes, because they're not fiction and not nonfiction.

Personally, I would consider them "mythology" (in the academic sense), but given the negative stigma that term conveys in the vernacular, it's not a good idea for a number of reasons. Obviously, that's generally why libraries give it it's own section, for fear of conveying the wrong message about what those texts actually are.
I've plumped with allegory for now, since although generally applied to literature, the term doesn't necessarily require the subject to be fictional.

Usually, yes, because they're not fiction and not nonfiction.

Personally, I would consider them "mythology" (in the academic sense), but given the negative stigma that term conveys in the vernacular, it's not a good idea for a number of reasons. Obviously, that's generally why libraries give it it's own section, for fear of conveying the wrong message about what those texts actually are.

I understand the politics of it--hate the politics of it, but I understand it. Can't tell the believers that their holy books are more fiction than fact--they tend to get upset, and when they get upset, they like to set things on fire, both metaphorically and literally.

Now is there actual proof he did not exist? No? Did not think so. Nice try Nazz but do try harder.

Now is there actual proof he did not exist? No? Did not think so. Nice try Nazz but do try harder.

Over here in the real world, the requirement is not to prove that someone did not exist, but that he did in the first place, and a book full of other historical inaccuracies cannot be considered a reputable source to prove the existence of a historical figure.

Besides, I have no vested interest in whether or not Moses existed. It's not like my life is built around the idea that the Bible is the infallible Word of God, after all.

Over here in the real world, the requirement is not to prove that someone did not exist, but that he did in the first place, and a book full of other historical inaccuracies cannot be considered a reputable source to prove the existence of a historical figure.

Besides, I have no vested interest in whether or not Moses existed. It's not like my life is built around the idea that the Bible is the infallible Word of God, after all.

No but you are making a point that this person thinks he did not exist. The blip you posted contained no proof that he did not exist. Therefor, it is on you to show us that he did not exist since you are making the point that he may not exist. Where is this proof that he is talking about?

Is there actual proof that unicorns did not exist?
No?
Did not think so.
Therefore they must of, right?

Actually Unicorns do not exist. There has never been any recorded evidence of Unicorns existing whereas we have a written record of Moses existing.

Is there actual proof that unicorns did not exist?
No?

Did not think so.
Therefore they must of, right?

Of course, at the same time it can be a fallacy to assume that it doesn't exist due to lack of information; if we have no evidence that he didn't exist, and we have no evidence that he did, the default position is to investigate it further.

Actually Unicorns do not exist. There has never been any recorded evidence of Unicorns existing whereas we have a written record of Moses existing.
If there's been no written records of unicorns existing, how do you know what I'm talking about?
I'd wager there's been more written about unicorns than about Moses.


edit: this timewarp thing is getting crazy!

Now is there actual proof he did not exist? No? Did not think so. Nice try Nazz but do try harder.
Is there actual proof that unicorns did not exist?
No?
Did not think so.
Therefore they must of, right?

I'm pretty sure the Encyclopedia Judaica never existed. I think it's more an allegory of encyclopedias the world over.

Maybe Mr. Peabody'll take us to see Moses - in his Wayback Machine.

Somehow that's even more scary. Because instead of blaming all the evil deeds on circumstances of the respective ages they create a history as they would want it and as it should have been. Including their murderous god, who names himself jealousy.

And you still contend you aren't anti-semitic.

Run along Nazi boy.

Over here in the real world, the requirement is not to prove that someone did not exist, but that he did in the first place, and a book full of other historical inaccuracies cannot be considered a reputable source to prove the existence of a historical figure.

Besides, I have no vested interest in whether or not Moses existed. It's not like my life is built around the idea that the Bible is the infallible Word of God, after all.I'm interested to hear some of these inaccuracies.

It's important because if Moses didn't exist, then by definition, the Bible is not infallible, and that should make a difference to anyone whose entire faith is based on that idea, and frighteningly enough, that's a pretty significant segment of christianity worldwide, especially in the US.

That's a good argument against some Christian fundies who claim it is unfallable. The thing about 95+% of Jews is that they don't see the Bible as infallable.

It's amazing how much of it I saw when I was in Israel. Even the most observant Jews in Tzfat accept evolution.

That's a false analogy and you know it, Zilam. Historical evidence for most Biblical figures that weren't already confirmed historical figures is minute at best, especially when it comes to figures like Moses and Jesus.There's more evidence that Jesus existed than any number of historic figures that we take for granted

Somehow that's even more scary. Because instead of blaming all the evil deeds on circumstances of the respective ages they create a history as they would want it and as it should have been. Including their murderous god, who names himself jealousy.He's kinda got a reason to be jealous.

Usually, yes, because they're not fiction and not nonfiction.

Personally, I would consider them "mythology" (in the academic sense), but given the negative stigma that term conveys in the vernacular, it's not a good idea for a number of reasons. Obviously, that's generally why libraries give it it's own section, for fear of conveying the wrong message about what those texts actually are.
Depends some libraries stick them in with all the other non-fiction works, in dewy decimal system, in the library of congress system it has a theology section where all books of this sort go, of course there aren't seperate fiction and non-fiction sections in the library of congress system.

Depends some libraries stick them in with all the other non-fiction works, in dewy decimal system, in the library of congress system it has a theology section where all books of this sort go, of course there aren't seperate fiction and non-fiction sections in the library of congress system.

My library at home puts it under "Nonfiction" but specifically in the category of "Religion/Mythology"; it's a good compromise since these texts fall in to such a gray area when it comes to subject matter.

Yeah, its probably the dewy system than.

I figured. I'm not sure what OSU uses, but I think they have specific sections for theology and mythology.

There's more evidence that Jesus existed than any number of historic figures that we take for granted

I have seen documents written by the hand of Thomas Jefferson himself. Can you say the same about Jeus?

My library at home puts it under "Nonfiction" but specifically in the category of "Religion/Mythology"; it's a good compromise since these texts fall in to such a gray area when it comes to subject matter.

Yeah, its probably the dewy system than.

Yeah, its probably the dewy system than.

More likely the Library of Congress system.

ok, so you have one group saying he might not have existed. Its like one group of scientists saying "The sun might not be a big ball of flaming gas" when indeed everyone else already knows it is.

Except, you know, that moses is part of the fictional history of a mud-hut tribe.

I've read documents inspired by him but I suppose you won't count those.

considering that's not what I asked, no. I've read documents inspired by Luke Skywalker, those don't count as proof for the existances of Jedis either.


There is however no questioning the historicity of Jesus.

Provide a single non biblical source that indicates the presence of jesus.

More likely the Library of Congress system.
Depends, it could be either are there leters at the front of the call number or numbers?

I have seen documents written by the hand of Thomas Jefferson himself. Can you say the same about Jesus?I've read documents inspired by him but I suppose you won't count those. There is however no questioning the historicity of Jesus.

I've read documents inspired by him but I suppose you won't count those. There is however no questioning the historicity of Jesus.

Sure there is--there's plenty of reason to question the historicity of Jesus. In some cases, the archaeology doesn't match up with the Biblical texts. And even if there were no reason to question whether or not he existed, the question of his divinity is certainly open to question, if not outright ridicule.

Provide a single non biblical source that indicates the presence of jesus.

I think Wikipedia covers the subject fairly in-depth; IIRC, there were several Roman writers who mentioned him, and they lived in the early and mid first century.

I think Wikipedia covers the subject fairly in-depth; IIRC, there were several Roman writers who mentioned him, and they lived in the early and mid first century.

The one I'm thinking of is Josephus, but he wasn't a contemporary--he was reporting on Jesus about the same time as the Gospels were, which would be about 30 years after his purported death. Disclaimer: I'm working purely from memory here and could be way off.

Sure there is--there's plenty of reason to question the historicity of Jesus. In some cases, the archaeology doesn't match up with the Biblical texts. And even if there were no reason to question whether or not he existed, the question of his divinity is certainly open to question, if not outright ridicule.

I'm pretty certain Jesus existed, but who he was and what exactly he did is inevitably confused by the sheer quantity of religious beliefs and ideas circulating in the first century AD. I mean, especially in Judea, there were so many people coming and going due to the thriving trade routes in the region that it would be next to impossible to figure out what was going on in terms of ideas and beliefs.

Hell, it's possible that Jesus came from somewhere else entirely, be it the Arabian Peninsula, India, or even Han China for that matter.

I think Wikipedia covers the subject fairly in-depth; IIRC, there were several Roman writers who mentioned him, and they lived in the early and mid first century.

wikipedia is not exacty a historical source. As for the roman writers who mentioned him, can you demonstrate that they were in fact refering o the biblican jesus? I personally haven't seen anything that seems to indicate that it was conclusivly discussing Jesus Christ by anyone who could have conceivably met him.

when indeed everyone else already knows it is.

Sorry, no - the evidence is pretty clear on the subject. The Exodus as described in the Bible could not have happened for countless reasons.

Where does that leave Moses? At best, with his historical self a very pale imitation of his Biblical one.

Sorry, no - the evidence is pretty clear on the subject. The Exodus as described in the Bible could not have happened for countless reasons.

Where does that leave Moses? At best, with his historical self a very pale imitation of his Biblical one.

The Exodus as described in the Bible could indeed have happened, but not in the chronology scheme currently applied by the academic world, which is reluctant for the most part to re-build a new chronology from scratch without all the idiotic misinterpretations out of the beginnings of egyptology in the 19th century. And since Moses is mentioned in sources outside the Bible it is very likely that he existed, it's just that those sources contradict the current interpretation of the bible in the chronological context which that interpretation is erroneously putting Moses in. There is no trace of Moses or of a significant number of Hebrews in the 19th (Ramesses, Seti) or now 18th (Akhenaten, very silly) Dynasties, but there is abundant evidence for large numbers of Hebrews in the 12th and 13th Dynasties, and the findings of M. Bietak at Avaris are suggesting the very scenario described in the bible for the exodus and the time prior (of course without the biblical exaggeration)

Now is there actual proof he did not exist?

Proof? No.

Similarly, there is no actual proof that King Arthur did not really exist as described in the legends about him, or that a friend of his named Merlin was a powerful wizard who knew the future and transformed people into animals... but the implications of either of those things are so absurd that no one should take the possibility seriously. The same is true about Moses.

Actually Unicorns do not exist. There has never been any recorded evidence of Unicorns existing whereas we have a written record of Moses existing.


We also have written records of dragons, ghosts, spirits, giants, witches, familiars and so on. Does that mean we should dance widdershins around a fire on the full moon?

I'm pretty certain Jesus existed, but who he was and what exactly he did is inevitably confused by the sheer quantity of religious beliefs and ideas circulating in the first century AD. I mean, especially in Judea, there were so many people coming and going due to the thriving trade routes in the region that it would be next to impossible to figure out what was going on in terms of ideas and beliefs.

Hell, it's possible that Jesus came from somewhere else entirely, be it the Arabian Peninsula, India, or even Han China for that matter.

I agree. It's a pretty common phenomenon when it comes to legendary figures from the ancient world that the legend is based on a real person who bears little, if any resemblance to the mythological one. The real problem is when people ascribe divine powers to the legend and then demand that others accept it based on nothing more than the book in which the stories have been collected. I doubt if anyone believes that Herakles actually fought the hydra, or that Odysseus fought Polyphemus, but there are a lot of people who believe Moses parted the Red Sea or that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. But really, what's the only difference in those two sets of examples? The source material.

And the scariest part of all is that people who believe in the veracity of the second set of stories are making global policy for superpowers.

There's more evidence that Jesus existed than any number of historic figures that we take for granted

is there some place you took that sentence (or at least sentiment) from? ive seen that very thing so many times on this forum that im wondering if its some kind of christian talking point.

sure there are some figures of history that didnt really exist. for the most part it doesnt matter if they did or not and if its show that they didnt, they fall into the legend column very quickly. many of the figures of the ancient world that we are sure DID exist, alexander the great for example, are not accepted as being exactly as the ancient writers describe them. (its fairly doubtful that alexander was really the son of a god).

but for religious reasons we have to accept everything written about jesus in the new testament as the complete and utter truth even though it was written by people for whom complete and utter truth wasnt a concept.

Actually Unicorns do not exist. There has never been any recorded evidence of Unicorns existing whereas we have a written record of Moses existing.

Yes there has. Just read any book about unicorns, there are a lot of them.

What you say? Those are mythological? Well, if you didn't believe in him, Moses would be mythological, too.

There's more evidence that Jesus existed than any number of historic figures that we take for granted
As far as I know, most of that evidence is contained within a 2000-year-old book. Nothing against old books, but my teachers always told me that to find definite proof of something it had to be found in multiple sources, preferably at least three or four.

I think Wikipedia covers the subject fairly in-depth; IIRC, there were several Roman writers who mentioned him, and they lived in the early and mid first century.
Josephus
Main article: Josephus on Jesus
Flavius Josephus (c. 37–c. 100), a Jew and Roman citizen who worked under the patronage of the Flavians, wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in 93. In it, Jesus is mentioned twice. In the second very brief mentioning, Josephus calls James, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ".[30] This is considered by the majority of scholars to be authentic,[31] though a few have raised doubts.[32]
More notably, in the Testimonium Flavianum, it is written:
About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease [to follow him], for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.[33]
Concerns have been raised about the authenticity of the passage, at least in part, and it is widely held by scholars that part of the passage is an interpolation by a later scribe. In antiquity, Origen recorded that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Christ.[34] Michael L. White argued against authenticity, citing that parallel sections of Josephus's Jewish War do not mention Jesus, and that some Christian writers as late as the third century, who quoted from the Antiquities, do not mention the passage.[35] However, most scholars have "no doubts" about the authenticity of the majority of the passage.[36] Certain scholars of Josephus's works have observed that this portion is written in his style.[37] Habermas wrote: "There is no textual evidence against it, and, conversely, there is very good manuscript evidence for this statements about Jesus, thus making it difficult to ignore."[38]


wikipedia is not exacty a historical source. As for the roman writers who mentioned him, can you demonstrate that they were in fact refering o the biblican jesus? I personally haven't seen anything that seems to indicate that it was conclusivly discussing Jesus Christ by anyone who could have conceivably met him.
See above.

We also have written records of dragons, ghosts, spirits, giants, witches, familiars and so on. Does that mean we should dance widdershins around a fire on the full moon?

Ghosts and spirits do exist.That much is true.

Ghosts and spirits do exist.That much is true.

really? how do you know. And please provide proof such that would prove the existance of ghosts and spirits which, at the same time, that level of proof can not be applied to dragons, unicorns, and the like.

Ghosts and spirits do exist.That much is true.

Well, if you accept ghosts and spirits, then why not dragons, unicorns, giants, witches, faeries, ogres, trolls, elves, imps, demons, Balrogs, Daleks, and Klingons?

Ghosts and spirits do exist.That much is true.

Are you doing the debate thing again?

really? how do you know. And please provide proof such that would prove the existance of ghosts and spirits which, at the same time, that level of proof can not be applied to dragons, unicorns, and the like.

1) ghosthunters

2) I am currently near one of the most haunted places in America.

3) Personal Experience

Well, if you accept ghosts and spirits, then why not dragons, unicorns, giants, witches, faeries, ogres, trolls, elves, imps, demons, Balrogs, Daleks, and Klingons?

No proof that these exist though demons could fall under spirits depending on what kind of demons you are talking about.

Are you doing the debate thing again?

Ghosts and Spirts do indeed exist.

No proof that these exist though demons could fall under spirits depending on what kind of demons you are talking about.

Same amount of proof as for ghosts and spirits -- written evidence in books, as well as in films and TV shows. Plus, some people claim to have experienced encounters with such creatures. For instance, look at all those Klingon speakers; they didn't just happen without Klingons! It's excellent indirect evidence!

As for dragons, elves, faeries, etc. -- I'm sure if you look you can find people who claim to have seen or experienced those too.

Ghosts and Spirts do indeed exist.

Between your ears, maybe. Its the subjective world I'm concerned with.

Well, if you accept ghosts and spirits, then why not dragons, unicorns, giants, witches, faeries, ogres, trolls, elves, imps, demons, Balrogs, Daleks, and Klingons?

Because I've had a personal experience with ghosts? Because belief in ghosts is a universal concept with hundreds of thousands of accounts and evidence spanning thousands of years?

And also, that's a logically fallacious line of argument. Just because I accept one thing as true doesn't mean I have to accept all of them, unless you can clearly show that believing in one necessarily entails believing in another.

Between your ears, maybe. Its the subjective world I'm concerned with.

The subjective world concerns only you. And the objective world is a joke...there's no such thing as "real" reality, it's something we create.

The subjective world concerns only you. And the objective world is a joke...there's no such thing as "real" reality, it's something we create.

Yet the "ghost" cannot be reproduced in front of a non-believer, nor can it be tested, recorded or noted in a way that stands up to scrutiny by a disinterested party. The same does not hold true of a snooker ball, a giant squid, or the common housefly.

Yet the "ghost" cannot be reproduced in front of a non-believer, nor can it be tested, recorded or noted in a way that stands up to scrutiny by a disinterested party. The same does not hold true of a snooker ball, a giant squid, or the common housefly.

No, mainly because ghosts don't follow easily observable patterns. Paranormal activity peaks and declines over time, and in some cases eventually declines or ceases due to changing conditions. I mean, if a ghost is really a disembodied spirit, do you think it's going to appear at your beck and call to be studied? People don't do than in life, so why on Earth would they do it in death?

Most of them only appear at certain times for certain reasons, and many of them aren't even corporeal to begin with so measuring them would be next to impossible anyways. In fact, if I see a ghost, it may be highly unlikely that anyone else will see it along with me, or they might see it at a totally different time or form.

Why do you say so?

Because everything conforms to our perceptions and beliefs, even things as objective as science fall in to this trap; one of the reasons why experiments have to be repeated is due to the "experimenter's effect", where the results conform to the innate desires of the person conducting the experiment. You can have two experiments produce different results simply because the people conducting them had different expectations regarding the test.

That doesn't mean "objective reality" doesn't exist in an abstract sense, but rather that we're just not capable of seeing it. This is because our view of the "real world" is an interpretation of that world through our beliefs and desires.

(of course without the biblical exaggeration)

...making Moses, like I said, a pale imitation of his Biblical self.

And the objective world is a joke...there's no such thing as "real" reality, it's something we create.

Why do you say so?

No, mainly because ghosts don't follow easily observable patterns. Paranormal activity peaks and declines over time, and in some cases eventually declines or ceases due to changing conditions. I mean, if a ghost is really a disembodied spirit, do you think it's going to appear at your beck and call to be studied? People don't do than in life, so why on Earth would they do it in death?

Most of them only appear at certain times for certain reasons, and many of them aren't even corporeal to begin with so measuring them would be next to impossible anyways. In fact, if I see a ghost, it may be highly unlikely that anyone else will see it along with me, or they might see it at a totally different time or form.

And it doesnt strike as at all dodgy that over the last 500 years (just to take a slice) nobody has managed to produce any reproducable evidence as descrived earlier at all?

And it doesnt strike as at all dodgy that over the last 500 years (just to take a slice) nobody has managed to produce any reproducable evidence as descrived earlier at all?

I don't know...not everything can be reproduced right away. I mean, we've only been able to observe subatomic particles for less than a century, and we've only been able to test quantum theory for at best a quarter of a century. We may simply not have the tools or knowledge necessary to investigate these phenomena yet; the paranormal is at best a protoscience right now. And given that further investigation in to the physical world has produced weirder and weirder phenomena, I would not say that these phenomena are totally baseless.

I also have to balance personal experience with anecdotal evidence; it's not something I can dismiss offhand because there are no explanations to the contrary for many of these phenomena. There are things that have happened to me that I can't explain, and I'm inclined as a result to believe in these phenomena.

Not to mention nobody wants to touch this stuff scientifically because of the attitudes in the scientific elite that look down upon parapsychology and the paranormal as legitimate fields of inquiry...but that's another topic altogether.

The one I'm thinking of is Josephus, but he wasn't a contemporary--he was reporting on Jesus about the same time as the Gospels were, which would be about 30 years after his purported death. Disclaimer: I'm working purely from memory here and could be way off.

Regardless of that, Josephus Flavius's writings should be accepted as fact.

About 150 years ago, people didn't necessarily buy his writings. Then they found Masada. That pretty much confirmed a lot of the stuff he wrote. His accounts are all we really have for the Judean-Roman War of the 1st century.

Regardless of that, Josephus Flavius's writings should be accepted as fact.

About 150 years ago, people didn't necessarily buy his writings. Then they found Masada. That pretty much confirmed a lot of the stuff he wrote. His accounts are all we really have for the Judean-Roman War of the 1st century.

Yes, well, but Josephus had his own agenda, remember. About the Jewish War, yes, he's reasonably accurate, as long as he doesn't have to acknowledge the fact that he switched sides. Going farther back, he's about as reliable as any other writer of his time period discussing events and people from a thousand or more years before, which is to say, not very. I don't think you can use Josephus as proof of Moses' existence.

Regardless of that, Josephus Flavius's writings should be accepted as fact.

About 150 years ago, people didn't necessarily buy his writings. Then they found Masada. That pretty much confirmed a lot of the stuff he wrote. His accounts are all we really have for the Judean-Roman War of the 1st century.

Even if we accept his word as accurate, all it really says is that a guy named Jesus existed. Nothing more. Nothing about his divinity or any miracles. And Josephus's report is barely hearsay even at that.

Between your ears, maybe. Its the subjective world I'm concerned with.

So I take it you do not believe in Ghosts even though hey do exist and have been documented to exist.

No, mainly because ghosts don't follow easily observable patterns. Paranormal activity peaks and declines over time, and in some cases eventually declines or ceases due to changing conditions. I mean, if a ghost is really a disembodied spirit, do you think it's going to appear at your beck and call to be studied? People don't do than in life, so why on Earth would they do it in death?

Most of them only appear at certain times for certain reasons, and many of them aren't even corporeal to begin with so measuring them would be next to impossible anyways. In fact, if I see a ghost, it may be highly unlikely that anyone else will see it along with me, or they might see it at a totally different time or form.

Excellent post Vetalia.

Excellent post Vetalia.

actually it's a horrible post. "well, you can't observe ghosts because ghosts are hard to observe". It's a cop out answer, nothing more.

Oh that's bullshit and you know it. They are hard to observe because they do not appear on a time scale.

That or they simply don't exist.

One is never garuntee to see a ghost at any given time.

One is never gaurenteed to see a ghost ever, and will not, as there is no such thing, and you've done nothing to demonstrate otherwise.

You want proof of Ghosts, go to Gettysburg.

Been there. Know what I saw?

A field.

And a gift shop

About it.

actually it's a horrible post. "well, you can't observe ghosts because ghosts are hard to observe". It's a cop out answer, nothing more.

It's a true statement. Ghosts, based upon what people have experienced and what we know of these phenomena through investigation are very variable in their activities. With the tools we have now, we can't observe them reliably. Serious investigation in to the paranormal is at best a few decades old, and so is forced to operate off of a nearly nonexistent base of scientific tools and knowledge. There was no predecessor that could provide paranormal investigators with the tools necessary to make precise measurements, and so they have had to make do with what is available.

If we develop new means of investigating or observing these phenomena, the reliability of occurrences and the ability to replicate them will increase as well. You can't dismiss these things out of hand due to lack of reliable measurement given that there is some evidence, just that it is not yet capable of withstanding full scientific rigor much like any protoscience.

There is simply too much evidence to dismiss out of hand, especially given that other paranormal phenomena like ESP are backed by a large quantity of evidence, and other phenomena that used to be considered paranormal (like ball lightning) are now understood as legitimate phenomena.

actually it's a horrible post. "well, you can't observe ghosts because ghosts are hard to observe". It's a cop out answer, nothing more.

Oh that's bullshit and you know it. They are hard to observe because they do not appear on a time scale. One is never garuntee to see a ghost at any given time. You want proof of Ghosts, go to Gettysburg.

So I take it you do not believe in Ghosts even though hey do exist and have been documented to exist.

As a hero of mine once said:

"What about Goblins, huh? Doesn't anybody believe in Goblins? You never hear about this. Except on Halloween and then it's all negative s**t. And what about Zombies? You never hear from Zombies! That's the trouble with Zombies, they're unreliable! I say if you're going to go for the Angel bulls**t you might as well go for the Zombie package as well."

It's a true statement.

The lunacy of you calling ANY claim about ghosts a "true statement" is laughable in its obsurdity.


There is simply too much evidence to dismiss out of hand, especially given that other paranormal phenomena like ESP are backed by a large quantity of evidence

There is nothing, NOTHING that I have seen that demonstrates with anything remotely resembling conclusivity that ESP exists. EVERY honest, rational, fair test that his been performed on so called psychics has shown nothing conclusively demonstrable and in almost all instances the supposed future see-ers perform no better than chance would dictate.

and other phenomena that used to be considered paranormal (like ball lightning) are now understood as legitimate phenomena.

This hurts your argument a WHOLE lot more than it helps it. What was once thought paranormal has been shown to be caused by something understandable, and firmly grounded in the laws of reality, not some transcendant being who have thought but no brain, who can see but have no eyes, and who can exist, but have no mass, and are not bound by the laws of thermaldynamics.

Oh that's bullshit and you know it. They are hard to observe because they do not appear on a time scale. One is never garuntee to see a ghost at any given time. You want proof of Ghosts, go to Gettysburg.

Well, that's conclusive enough for me. You've certainly shattered everyone's skepticism with such conclusive and definative proof of the existence of ghosts.

Lion: I do believe in spooks. I do believe in spooks. I do! I do! I do! I do believe in spooks. I do believe in spooks. I do! I do! I do! I do!
Witch: You'll believe in more than that before I'm finished with you.

All we need now is a wardrobe and ... :D

So I take it you do not believe in Ghosts even though hey do exist and have been documented to exist.


What the Vetalia fella was saying was that they as of yet had not been documented. This at least tries to be realistic. There is no documented evidence of Ghosts, spirits etc. At all. Nada. Which is odd, because up till relatively recent times belief was widespread, through many levels of western society. The only thing that turned up was fakery (the spritualists). Now if you like wandering around at night and scaring the crap out of yourself, fire away, but its you scaring yourself and nothing else.

Oh that's bullshit and you know it. They are hard to observe because they do not appear on a time scale..


There used be a bus round my way like that - 47B. Very dodgy. It existed though, it was just late a lot.

Oh that's bullshit and you know it. They are hard to observe because they do not appear on a time scale. One is never garuntee to see a ghost at any given time. You want proof of Ghosts, go to Gettysburg.

Do the ghosts ride to gettysburg on flying saucers?

Flying saucers have been documented to exist too, you can find pictures of them easily online.

There was even a show once where they, like, dissected an alien.

Do you belive in fairies and gnomes and elves too?

The lunacy of you calling ANY claim about ghosts a "true statement" is laughable in its obsurdity.

What? That it's a true statement that ghosts can't be reliably observed with the tools we have now? That's been the case for all of the investigations in to the subject we've done so far.

There is nothing, NOTHING that I have seen that demonstrates with anything remotely resembling conclusivity that ESP exists. EVERY honest, rational, fair test that his been performed on so called psychics has shown nothing conclusively demonstrable and in almost all instances the supposed future see-ers perform no better than chance would dictate.

That's probably because most "psychics" are frauds to begin with. I'm as skeptical of them as anyone else, because most of them are clearly using techniques like cold reading and leading the audience to make their predictions. In the parapsychological community most of the psychics are seen with the same skepticism that anyone in the skeptical community directs towards them.

However, other experiments like the Ganzfeld and Zener card , Sony's experiments, Dean Radin's work, and the investigations of numerous people in the parapsychological community have shown that there are people capable of predicting these things far above the deviation normally attributable to random chance. Emerging disciplines of psychology are also exploring these properties.

Are these conclusive? No. That doesn't mean they should be dismissed out of hand, especially when there is evidence worth considering. Unless all of these experiments were completely fake, you're going to have to dismiss all of their evidence regardless of its validity.

This hurts your argument a WHOLE lot more than it helps it. What was once thought paranormal has been shown to be caused by something understandable, and firmly grounded in the laws of reality, not some transcendant being who have thought but no brain, who can see but have no eyes, and who can exist, but have no mass, and are not bound by the laws of thermaldynamics.

Yes, they were shown possible by the discovery of a new physical property. Before we understood the physics behind them, we assumed that their cause was supernatural in origin, just like we do with ghosts now because we had no other explanation for what might be the case. It may be that we simply don't understand the mechanics behind ghostly phenomena and so we're forced in to a supernatural explanation until better techniques and evidence are discovered. In fact, if we look in to its history the origins of science itself were born in the magical thinking of groups like the alchemists or astrologers; the things they saw as paranormal ultimately turned out to be real, physical phenomena.

I mean, so little is understood about the brain, even life itself and its properties that to assume the possibility of a physical, but incorporeal, consciousness is not possible or even likely is completely unfounded. If mental properties are the product of, for example, quantum level action, it is entirely possible for a conscious mind to exist where such calculations can be performed.

And, of course, I don't say that ghosts can see...they tend to be able to manifest in certain locations, but those locations often pay no heed to the actual geography or current layout of the area. If anything, they seem to be working more according to memory from their own time than any actual ability to perceive their surroundings.

What the Vetalia fella was saying was that they as of yet had not been documented. This at least tries to be realistic. There is no documented evidence of Ghosts, spirits etc. At all. Nada. Which is odd, because up till relatively recent times belief was widespread, through many levels of western society. The only thing that turned up was fakery (the spritualists). Now if you like wandering around at night and scaring the crap out of yourself, fire away, but its you scaring yourself and nothing else.

Correct. However, given the large amounts of anecdotal and investigational evidence and personal experience, I am inclined to believe that there is more to the concept of ghosts than folklore and that it merits further investigation.

Does that mean they are supernatural, transcendent spirits of the dead? I don't know.

If anything, that seems the less likely explanation given that any definition of the spirit world effectively places them outside of the physical world. However, I do know that it is possible that these paranormal phenomena may have natural causes that could be investigated scientifically if we were to research them and develop workable theories and means of collecting evidence about them.

Correct. However, given the large amounts of anecdotal and investigational evidence and personal experience, I am inclined to believe that there is more to the concept of ghosts than folklore and that it merits further investigation.

Does that mean they are supernatural, transcendent spirits of the dead? I don't know.

If anything, that seems the less likely explanation given that any definition of the spirit world effectively places them outside of the physical world. However, I do know that it is possible that these paranormal phenomena may have natural causes that could be investigated scientifically if we were to research them and develop workable theories and means of collecting evidence about them.

As ye will.

As ye will.

I'm of the opinion that it is time for science to start investigating the spiritual and paranormal; the stigmas surrounding these fields, both from the scientific side which dismisses them as "pseudoscience" and the religious/paranormal side which sees it as a taboo, are detrimental to understanding these phenomena for what they really are.

The subjective world concerns only you. And the objective world is a joke...there's no such thing as "real" reality, it's something we create.That's only the opinion of esoterics and other fatuous people.

That's only the opinion of esoterics and other fatuous people.Or anyone who has an understanding of the history of science and realizes that what is fact/fiction today is just one more paradigm shift away from reversing, as it has before. Science at one time knew that the earth was the center of the universe, that disease was a result of an inbalance of the humors, that truth was based on LOGIC not silly little things like data and numbers. And then come people notiing holes in those beliefs and what do you know we, have a new system with Newtonian physics and such, but eventually that begins to have problems as well and new paradigms emerge Einstein, quantum mechanics, phenomena once thought fictional, ball lightning/ meterights, are shown to actually exist and science changes once more. The "truth" of "reality" is totaly dependent on the dominant paradigm of the time and when that changes, as it always has, "truth" and "reality" will warp and change to better fit the new paradigm science will turn to the new problems that emerge with the new paradigm, untill that paradigm to is a mess of band-aid fixes and bows in time to the emergence of yet a newer and "more correct" version of "truth."

Or anyone who has an understanding of the history of science and realizes that what is fact/fiction today is just one more paradigm shift away from reversing, as it has before. Science at one time knew that the earth was the center of the universe, that disease was a result of an inbalance of the humors, that truth was based on LOGIC not silly little things like data and numbers. And then come people notiing holes in those beliefs and what do you know we, have a new system with Newtonian physics and such, but eventually that begins to have problems as well and new paradigms emerge Einstein, quantum mechanics, phenomena once thought fictional, ball lightning/ meterights, are shown to actually exist and science changes once more. The "truth" of "reality" is totaly dependent on the dominant paradigm of the time and when that changes, as it always has, "truth" and "reality" will warp and change to better fit the new paradigm science will turn to the new problems that emerge with the new paradigm, untill that paradigm to is a mess of band-aid fixes and bows in time to the emergence of yet a newer and "more correct" version of "truth."Ignorance is bliss, they say... :rolleyes:
You must lead a blissful life indeed.

"Reality" constantly shifts according to new knowledge, and even when we have new knowledge it is still shaped according to our subjective perception. That's one of the main reasons why scientific experiments have to be reproducible; there is a well-known tendency for research to conform to the desires of the person conducting it, and in order for the observations to be verified they have to be repeated to remove that bias.

Indeed, our world has numerous examples of conscious thought overpowering biological or physical constraints. Will is very powerful, and it does shape our perception of reality.Examples?

Speaking of reality ...

"Moses supposes his toses are roses.....but
Moses supposes erroneously.....
Moses he knowses his toses aren't roses......as
Moses supposes his toses to be."

"Moses supposes his toses are roses,
but Moses supposes erroneously

"But Moses he knowses his toses aren't roses,
as Moses supposes his toses to be!"

"Moses supposes his toses are roses,
As Moses supposes his toses to be,

A Mose is a Mose,
A rose is a rose,
A toes is a toes,
Hoopdedillydilly!

"Moses supposes his toses are roses,
but Moses supposes erroneously,
Moses he knowses his toses aren't roses,
as Moses supposes his toses to be!

"Moses! Moses! Moses!
As Moses supposes his toses to be!

"A rose is a rose is a rose is a roses,
A rose is what Moses supposes his toes is,
It couldn't be a Lilly or a taffy-daffy- dilly,
It's got to be a rose cause it rhymes with Mose.

Ignorance is bliss, they say... :rolleyes:
You must lead a blissful life indeed.

"Reality" constantly shifts according to new knowledge, and even when we have new knowledge it is still shaped according to our subjective perception. That's one of the main reasons why scientific experiments have to be reproducible; there is a well-known tendency for research to conform to the desires of the person conducting it, and in order for the observations to be verified they have to be repeated to remove that bias.

Indeed, our world has numerous examples of conscious thought overpowering biological or physical constraints. Will is very powerful, and it does shape our perception of reality.

What do you mortals know anyways?

I was there, who do you think suddenly gave the Hebrews writing, gave them superior military tatics, wrote the Bible and Torah, and wrote the orginal eight commandments,

What do you mortals know anyways?

I was there, who do you think suddenly gave the Hebrews writing, gave them superior military tatics, wrote the Bible and Torah, and wrote the orginal eight commandments,
You are not funny.

Skepdic gives a good explanation (http://skepdic.com/experimentereffect.html)

Note that this applies primarily to experiments involving humans, where communication with the groups involved is possible.No.

Examples of conscious thought overpowering biological or physical constraints, please.

Examples?

Skepdic gives a good explanation (http://skepdic.com/experimentereffect.html)

Note that this applies primarily to experiments involving humans, where communication with the groups involved is possible.

Freeman Dyson, Miracle, and the Belief in the Paranormal (http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/04-05-04.html#freeman)

Freeman Dyson, Miracle, and the Belief in the Paranormal (http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/04-05-04.html#freeman)

His second part is similar to my position entirely. Dyson's views on the matter are very similar to mine.

And Michael Shermer's response is disturbingly dogmatic...that doesn't sound like a skeptic, but rather a strange, baseless kind of denial that uses the dismissive "either people can read other people’s minds (or the backs of ESP cards), or they can’t. Science has more than adequately demonstrated that they can't." when that has never in fact been established anywhere in scientific research.

In fact, parapsychologists have struggled for years to be accepted in the scientific community, and their work is only just now being examined closely. If anything, the paranormal is a protoscience that might hint at an underlying consilience between psychology, cognitive neuroscience, physics, and biology and a broader connection to the social sciences.

His second part is similar to my position entirely. Dyson's views on the matter are very similar to mine.

And Michael Shermer's response is disturbingly dogmatic...that doesn't sound like a skeptic, but rather a strange, baseless kind of denial that uses the dismissive "either people can read other people’s minds (or the backs of ESP cards), or they can’t. Science has more than adequately demonstrated that they can't." when that has never in fact been established anywhere in scientific research.

In fact, parapsychologists have struggled for years to be accepted in the scientific community, and their work is only just now being examined closely. If anything, the paranormal is a protoscience that might hint at an underlying consilience between psychology, cognitive neuroscience, physics, and biology and a broader connection to the social sciences.

Nor has it been established anywhere that people can read each other's minds in the way that proponents of parapsychology say they can. You yourself admit that there is very, very little scientific data available and yet you ask that we accept parapsychology because it "might be true." We hear the same arguments from the proponents of Intelligent Design.

Maybe people can read minds and move objects with their minds and all. You say the science is being worked on. Good, keep working and show me. Until you do, I cannot accept it as a fact. I will try to remain open-minded about it, but as Sherlock Holmes once said, I must have data.

Nor has it been established anywhere that people can read each other's minds in the way that proponents of parapsychology say they can. You yourself admit that there is very, very little scientific data available and yet you ask that we accept parapsychology because it "might be true." We hear the same arguments from the proponents of Intelligent Design.

But, unlike ID, parapsychology seeks scientific, natural and testable explanations for these phenomena. They don't seek supernatural explanations or justify their arguments using religious texts but rather they make a serious effort to investigate and explain these phenomena.

There is some evidence, but as you and I have said it's scanty at best. Unfortunately, given the infancy of the field it is still formulating possible theories and collecting evidence of the phenomena rather than trying to outright explain them.

Maybe people can read minds and move objects with their minds and all. You say the science is being worked on. Good, keep working and show me. Until you do, I cannot accept it as a fact. I will try to remain open-minded about it, but as Sherlock Holmes once said, I must have data.

Yup. Parapsychology has been, at best, a formal scientific discipline for less than 30 years (dating from when the Parapsychological Association joined the AAAS), so it's barely in its infancy as a discipline. There's potential there, but it will take a lot more work in the field to establish a standard set of procedures and initial theories.

Ignorance is bliss, they say... :rolleyes:
You must lead a blissful life indeed.

Paying attention to the fact that history shows that science is a continuously shifting and changing subject where things that are dismissed one day can become accepted facts the next, figurativly speaking of course it would actually take years, such as ball lightning and other theories that have been mentioned in this thread is ignorance? If that's the case I wonder what they call refusing to accept the facts of history because they don't fit neatly into your current paradigm?

That said I generally agree with most of what Vetalia's said.

No need to discuss further. We all know early religion was placed on Earth intentionally by space aliens to contain vague histories behind each religious character so they can play a joke on us and laugh from far and beyond.

I say we drop the whole religion thing and get to business...

Revenge.

You are not funny.Who says I was joking.;)

But, unlike ID, parapsychology seeks scientific, natural and testable explanations for these phenomena. They don't seek supernatural explanations or justify their arguments using religious texts but rather they make a serious effort to investigate and explain these phenomena.

There is some evidence, but as you and I have said it's scanty at best. Unfortunately, given the infancy of the field it is still formulating possible theories and collecting evidence of the phenomena rather than trying to outright explain them.



Yup. Parapsychology has been, at best, a formal scientific discipline for less than 30 years (dating from when the Parapsychological Association joined the AAAS), so it's barely in its infancy as a discipline. There's potential there, but it will take a lot more work in the field to establish a standard set of procedures and initial theories.

So what you say is really, there is nothing to show.
Good Day, Dr. Venkman. :rolleyes:

And what about all your examples of conscious thought overpowering biological or physical constraints?

If Moses doesn't exist, maybe God, Jesus, and Statn don't either.

Nahhhh. Wouldn't go down well with the fundies.

Doesn't that depend on what fundamentals one holds dear?