Mystery 'Angel' Priest Appears At Missouri Car Crash, Performs 'Miracle,' Then Disappears

[moobu2]

That was an actual headline of Huffington Post.

Here's another from another news source. "MYSTERY ‘ANGEL’ PRIEST APPEARS TO HELP TRAPPED TEEN FOLLOWING HORRIBLE CAR CRASH — THEN DISAPPEARS"

Here's another. "Mystery Priest at horrible crash prompts talk of being a real "Angel"

Another. "Miracle in Missouri: Mysterious Priest Appears at Accident Scene, Prays for Healing and Disappears"

Another. Miracle working Catholic angel priest from Missouri has come forward

And another. Mystery ‘Angel’ Priest Appears to Help Trapped Teen Following Horrible Car Crash — Then Disappears

The story was sensationalized by media and over-hyped in the extreme. The responders were even adding to it by making the priest seem very mysterious..."he just vanished" "he appeared out of nowhere" etc...

Turns out it was just an ordinary priest who happened to be driving by, saw the accident, and asked if he may be of any assistance. He parked his car, walked up to the scene, did his thing then walked away got into his car and drove away. Nothing at all mysterious about it. And what was the miracle? Did he elevate the wrecked car, open it up with an invisible car opener and remove the injured woman and heal her? nope. He prayed and it seemed to calm the woman while they cut her out with the jaws-of-life and then the emergency workers treated her at the scene and took her to the hospital where they gave her further treatment and she's recovering.

The priest came forward and explained that there wasn't anything miraculous about it.

People are still trying to squeeze a religious miracle out of this when they should be praising science and medical technology.

Here's a headline from today. "Miracle working Catholic angel priest from Missouri has come forward". There are others too.

Sorry folks but miracle do not happen and there's no such things as Angels and Gods.

[moobu2]

1. Some say Fresno tree is weeping tears of God.

That is another God miracle headline from the L.A. Times.

and here's the story with the real explanation in bold.

Rosemarie Navarro wore a mask over her nose and mouth and looked up, with hope, from her wheelchair at the crape myrtle tree.

The tree outside her Catholic church in Fresno has been dripping a clear liquid, and Navarro and a small group of parishioners believe the liquid is the tears of God, the television station CBS47 Fresno reported.

“I said my prayer and asked for him to give me a miracle because I’m really, really sick,” Navarro told CBS47.

The tree outside St. John’s Cathedral weeps more when they pray, Maria Ybarra told the station.

“When you say ‘glory be to God in Jesus’ name,’ the tree starts throwing out more water,” Ybarra said.

Ybarra said she was the first person to feel the liquid last week and believes it is from God, whether it is water or something else.

Fresno arborist Jon Reelhorn told the television station that the liquid dripping from the crape myrtle is not water but excrement from aphids, small, sap-sucking insects.

“The aphids will suck the sap, the sap goes through the aphid,” Reelhorn said. “And then it is a honey dew excrement from the aphid, and it gets so heavy in the summer that it will drip down.”

Reelhorn told CBS47 he found another tree dripping across the street from St. John’s.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-ln-fresno-tree-weep-tears-of-god-20130813,0,120764.story

[Warpy]

2. Likely the Third Man Factor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Man_factor

[SwissTony]

3. Slight correction to the OP - let's give the priest a little credit for his concern and empathy.

"People are still trying to squeeze a religious miracle out of this when they should be praising the kindness of a passing priest, science and medical technology. " My addition.

He himself did not claim a miraculous intervention.

Edited because I can't type without hitting extra keys.

[okasha]

4. +1

n/t

[rexcat]

13. The person should get the credit...

the fact he is a priest seems irrelevant. You don't have to be a priest, minister, rabbi, etc. to have empathy towards your fellow humans and give aid and assistance when needed.

[SwissTony]

15. I agree entirely.

The priest acted as a kind and empathic human being. My point was that the story was spun as an 'angel' appearing and performing a 'miracle'.

I'm sure many other concerned persons (e.g. teachers, nurses, factory workers etc) would have offered help in the same situation. The spin wouldn't have been there had it been one of these people.

[demwing]

5. "miracle[s] do not happen and there's no such things as Angels and Gods" - that's one opinion

not even a majority opinion, but I respect your right to believe as you wish.

[cleanhippie]

11. No, that is not an opinion, it is an objective view of reality.

With reality being the laws of physics and the natural laws of the universe that are the same for every single one of us, regardless of individual beliefs.


If you have some evidence to present that would refute the laws of physics and the natural laws of the universe in favor of what would be considered a "miracle", please do so. But I'm 99.9% sure you will do no such thing, and instead will sidestep that and try yet another tired, worn-out, well-debunked religious apologists "argument".

[demwing]

32. I'm sorry, but it *was* an opinion

An objective response would have been short, and stated something to the effect of: "No one has presented any scientific evidence that supports the existence of angels or gods." Play with the language, do whatever...

You were much more objective in your challenge to me, but the quote I responded to was truly an opinion based on the OP's personal interpretation of what is real.

And that's OK.

I have to agree with you. There is no evidence that I - or anyone - can show you that fits your requirement. Which is why is impossible for believers to respond to challenges objectively. All of the "evidence" that we have is subjective.

I'm not a foolish person. I have a respectable IQ, am college educated, and multi-culturally experienced. I look at all the lack of physical evidence to support the existence of God, and I wonder "How can I continue to believe?"

I believe because I have experienced some "thing" that I cannot understand or explain, but I find it impossible to deny. I cannot simply chose to not believe.

Maybe I'm insane. That's a possibility. If so, I'm a highly functional lunatic. At least that's my own perception. I read somewhere that the sum total of what we can perceive (the observable universe) is only about 5% of of the actual universe. Perhaps somewhere in that other 95% of reality, the physical evidence for miracles, angels, and Gods exist.

Maybe it doesn't, I'm not concerned.

I'm convinced. Maybe it's irrational, but I can't deny my spirituality, not even when my own rationality is calling for me to do so.

[cleanhippie]

47. Fair enough.

You admit more than most here do about the objective irrationality of your beliefs that run contrary to reality as it exists or all of us, and I appreciate that.

[demwing]

48. When you say it, it sounds bad, lol

but since I'm not trawling for converts OR supporters, I can live with the subtle (ok, not so subtle) snark.

[cleanhippie]

49. I can see how it might look that way to you, but it is sincere.

You are more honest than most other believers on here. If more were like you in that respect, we just might have better discussions.

[demwing]

50. and better discussions is exactly my goal

thanks for your comments

[Socal31]

6. Did they confirm it wasn't George Zimmerman?

[hrmjustin]

9. LOL!

[cbayer]

7. You really need to start preparing for trip to Oslo to pick up that prize,

because anyone who can say definitively that there are no angels or gods definitely deserves a Nobel.

They are, of course, going to ask you to be able to back that up.

Which you can't.

So I guess you can unpack.

[DrDan]

52. +1

completely agree - and I am also a non-believer

[No Vested Interest]

8. Fr. Patrick Dowling is the priest who "did his thing then walked away got in his car and drove away"

His "thing", apparently, was to bring hope and consolation to a young woman in agony and physical danger, who was calling out to her God for assistance. By the way, she is of another religion than the priest.

Fr. Dowling has since visited the young woman, who remains hospitalized with serious damage to her legs.
I guess visiting the injured in the hospital is his "thing" as well.

[moobu2]

10. Whatever he did though had nothing whatsoever to do with God's or Angels

The story was being promoted by virtually every media outlet, especially religious ones, as some supernatural being that appeared out of no where, performed some magical incantation which I guess allowed the equipment to work, then he just vanished into thin air.

The story wasn't that an ordinary priest gave comfort to an injured frightened woman then went on with his daily activities. Far from it.

The priest didn't do anything anyone else couldn't do, even a strong atheist.

[No Vested Interest]

14. Nor does he claim to; he credits the expertise of the rescuers.

As for "magical incantation" - I saw no reporting of that. Perhaps I didn't look hard enough.

[moobu2]

16. The priest said

"I have no doubt the Most High answered their prayers and I was part of his answer" so he didn't give all the credit to the rescuers. But, I wasn't talking about what the priests own claims were about the incident, although I think he could have come forward much earlier than he did and put an end to the Angel hype.

The rescuers themselves said the priest performed some rites with oils and/or water and said some words and I think they said he used an amulet that had an actual effect on the physical world.

That sounds like magical incantations to me.

[okasha]

17. According to Father Dowling,

he anointed the victim, gave her absolution and prayed on her behalf--all at her request.

Could/would a "strong atheist" do any of that?

[moobu2]

20. Well obviously a strong athiest could have talked to her

and calmed her down while rescue workers did their jobs. She wasn't Catholic. The priest didn't actually perform magic on her. A strong Atheist could have also just pretended to be priest or a pastor and told her whatever she needed to hear to calm her down. Kind of like a religious placebo. They could have sprinkled bottled water on her and told her it was magic holy water and winged some kind of prayer that sounded official. But the religious folks would have just claimed God was working through the Atheist...Rather than just admit the obvious, they'l just find some way to insert God into it.

[okasha]

23. In other words, a strong atheist would have had to lie

to do what the priest did. You're assuming the victim wouldn't recognize the fraud.

No points.

[moobu2]

26. I didnt say the strong atheist would have HAD to lie.

I was just giving some examples of other ways the same thing could have been accomplished. Remember the priest didn't actually do anything other than calm her down. Anybody could have don that. A strong atheist physician could have happened upon the scene and administered some tranquilizing drug and calmed her down to.

The point is this story was being hyped as some miraculous event and it just was not.

[okasha]

27. Of course it wasn't a "miraculous" event.

From your point of view, the priest only "calmed her down." From her point of view, apparently, he did a good deal more.

Your point of view doesn't matter. Hers does.

[trotsky]

12. What bothers me most is as you point out, the "miracle" gets all the press and attention.

The hard-working medical personnel who spent YEARS of their lives learning how to care for our fragile meat sacks get squat. I suspect though it's one of the known pitfalls of the trade, and the good ones aren't doing it for recognition anyway.

Sorry about the snark and abuse you've gotten on this thread for merely voicing your religious opinion. A believer can loudly proclaim THERE IS A GOD and certain folks will never jump in to tell them to head to Oslo. Yay, double standards!

[edhopper]

18. Faries and Unicorns don't exist

is that stating a fact, or just an opinion?

[cbayer]

19. Do most of the people living on earth believe in fairies and unicorns?

Has there been evidence across cultures and 1,000's of years of recorded time that there has been a belief in fairies and unicorns ?

Have fairies and unicorns had a profound impact on human literature, music, art and philosophy?

Do the answers to these questions influence whether it is fact or opinion? Or is it neither?

Saying that there is no god, presented as fact, is totally fallacious.

Saying that one does not or does believe there is a god is a truth.

[edhopper]

21. So should I substitute

all the gods and demi-gods that most of the world believed in at one time?
Because they certainly fit your explanation of why God should be considered to exist.

Didn't we already go over in another thread, that what a group of people believe, no matter how large the group, has no bearing on the truth?

[cbayer]

22. Sure, because for all one knows they might be part of the same thing

or a large and evolving entity.

Surely I don't know and never expect to.

Are you suggesting that no consideration should be given to the existence of a god or gods? Because that's never going to happen.

[edhopper]

25. No,

I would never suggested that mankind cannot be repeatedly wrong. That would be foolish to consider.

Or are you asking if i should give no consideration that gods exists? I did give it a lot of consideration and found there was no basis for their existence.

[cbayer]

28. No, you should give just as much consideration to it as you want or need to.

And that might be none at all.

If you come up with a definitive answer, let me know. Your personal answer is just fine, but it is only your belief, not a fact.

[edhopper]

30. The absense of belief is not a belief

Faries and angels and unicorns, I don't just disbelieve in them.
I find no reason to acknowledge the possibility of their existence.
The results of critical thinking and reason are not "beliefs".
All points of view do not get equal weight for their veracity.

[cbayer]

34. Then stop using the word "believe".

You either believe there is a god or you believe there is no god or you take the position that you just don't know.

You personally have no reason to acknowledge the existence of gods. That's cool. That's more than cool.

It makes no difference to me or pretty much any one else on the planet.

So why would you care what others believe, as long as they don't infringe on your rights.

Critical thinking and reason. Bah! Straight from another book that is just another bible.

When it comes to the existence of god, all POV's do get equal weight for veracity in my world.

[edhopper]

38. really?

You think that fundamentalist, creationist beliefs are equally true? What about radical Muslims?
And I don't use the word 'belief' in reply to others, not in reference to my atheism.


'

[cbayer]

40. Hello? I said as long as those beliefs are not harmful or impinging on the rights of others.

Use the word or not, you have believes. First of all, you believe that you are right and others are wrong, even though you have no evidence to back that up.

Very unscientific.

I don't care about what you believe or don't believe. Don't you get that? I only care that you think you are right and conclude that everyone else must be wrong.

Very unscientific.

[edhopper]

45. I base my nonacceptance of god

on the total preponderance of evidence, or should I say, the complete lack of any evidence.

That is, as you say, very scientific.

Tell me where on earth do religious beliefs have no impact on others.
Are you the arbitrator on what is harmful to others and what impinges on rights?

And all the believers here don't think I am wrong about God, funny how you never take them to task for their beliefs.

[cbayer]

51. I don't think I have ever seen a believer in here make the definitive statement that

there is a god.

They may have, but I don't think I have seen it.

I have seen them say, "I believe there is a god" a lot.

You really seem to want to set up teams here. There are others that want to do the same.

I'm not interested.

[No Vested Interest]

53. I am continually struck by the irony of the

non-believers who choose to so consistently post in the "Religion" group. It seems such a contradiction of what they proclaim to be.

As others have expressed, no one other than themselves cares or is interested, and they're unlikely to win anyone to their unbelief by antagonistic postings.

Daily I say to myself "Why"?
Maybe, it's just because they can.

[cbayer]

54. Some see it as a team sport.

There is as much evangelizing in here at times as in any fundamentalist church.

It is ironic that some say that they avoid religious people at all possible costs, then hang out in this group.

But, there are lots of great non-believers that hang out here, too. They are open, tolerant and truly interested in discussing the intersection of politics and religions.

[No Vested Interest]

57. Sport, indeed, either team or individual, it seems

There are likely many reasons we come to these forums, and a spirit of competitiveness is apparently one of them. It may at times involve a desire to control the thoughts, or, at least the expression of thought of others. Some come right out and tell us they love to debate.

Well, to those so inclined, go to it, but, at the same time, realize that many others wish to discuss, or even, converse.
I include my self among the latter.

[cbayer]

59. It's a fine line sometimes.

I think the republican party has used divide and conquer pretty effectively when it comes to democrats.

Sometimes it's hard to tell whether we are working towards recognizing what we share and building coalitions around those things or just trying to win.

I am competitive and can easily be drawn into divisive debate, so I have to actively try to avoid it. Not always successful, that's for sure.

But at other times, I see a debate on this site that truly leads to a higher level of understanding about where the other person is coming from and that almost always leads to an increase in tolerance of other POV's. It can even lead one to adjust their own.

Glad you are participating here. There are some really interesting people discussing some really interesting things in this group, despite how contentious religion can be.

[trotsky]

58. Since this same snark seems to pop up from time to time, here's an answer for you...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=89215

I have gotten enough PMs to know that people appreciate hearing from other perspectives in this group. If you don't like what some people say, there is an Interfaith group where contrary opinions on religion are forbidden.

[trotsky]

46. Ah, so all beliefs are valid unless they conflict with a particular one of your beliefs.

Or in other words, you are right, and everyone else is wrong.

Got it.

[moobu2]

24. The totality of the evidence leads me to strongly

believe beyond a reasonable doubt that there are no such things as Gods, Unicorns, Fairies, angels and ghosts. Happy now?

I can say without reservation that there are no such things as God's or angels just as certainly as I can say you don't have a tiny pink magic elephant in your front pocket that poops gold dust.

[cbayer]

29. As you state, that is your belief, and there is nothing wrong with it.

But when one states their beliefs as facts, there is something quite wrong with that. It's not different than a religious fundamentalist might do.

You can say it without reservation all day long, but you can't say it with any authority whatsoever. And assuming that you do looks pretty silly.

[Lordquinton]

31. You can believe anything you want, all day long

But when you try to state it as fact, you better have some back up.

No religious person has ever backed it up, just attacked the other person.

Over the course of time millions of things have been proven to not be divine or supernatural, going by the odds, I don't think one more thing will prove god exists.

If you actually have proof of the divine, then buy your tickets to Oslo, you'll be rich and famous soon.

[cbayer]

33. I would say the same to anyone who made a definitive statement that there is a god.

If someone says, "I believe x", they are not attacking another person.

If they say, "X is true and if you don't agree with me, you are a fool", that's an attack.

And that second statement has no legitimacy no matter what position it comes from.

Going by the odds, I acknowledge that your conclusion is valid for you and may even be true.

If you have either proof of a deity or a proof that this planet exists without any relationship to a deity whatsoever, start packing your bags for Oslo.

But neither of those is ever going to happen, imo.

[Lordquinton]

35. Unfortunately that's not how science works

You don't have to disprove anything, you have to actually prove it in the first place, which, in the case of the supernatural, has never been done. So you can believe anything you want, and I can call BS on anything you believe all I want, we are both equally entitled to those positions.

[cbayer]

36. It's not about science, is it. It's about religion.

And in religion, you don't have the answer unless you can either prove or disprove something.

So the old tired argument of "I don't have to disprove anything" is not an argument at all. You don't believe. Others believe. Neither "side" has an upper hand in the argument.

You are no more right or wrong than a believer.

And since it is my belief that no one will ever be able to prove or disprove the existence of a god or gods, the arguments are ridiculous.

Believers and non-believers just need to find common ground and work towards common goals, while respecting that they don't see the world the same way.

And that's the bottom line.

[Lordquinton]

37. You are the one who brought science into it

By invoking a prize based on scientific achievement, the rules shifted, and you forgot that no one has ever proven anything in religion, aside from the benefits of a social group.

You also just gave equal credence to any crackpot idea out there, no matter how wrong or damaging it may be. Ideas aren't equal just because you don't want to hurt anyone's feelings.

Just thought I'd add that I should call out the logical fallices, like moving the goal posts, and vox populi, but I just can't be bothered.

[cbayer]

39. Actually, aren't' there nobel prizes for literature and peace?

Hardly wholly scientific endeavors.

I don't give a crap about crackpot ideas, as long as they don't harm the individual holding them or others. Why would I?

OMG, you've read the book about logical fallacies! That's great, but it makes not a bit of difference to me.

It's not a debate that needs a winner or loser.

I don't care if there is a god or not. I don't care if you care if there is a god or not. I only care that we respect each others ways of seeing and experiencing the world and find common ground.

Either you are with me in this endeavor or you have a different goal in mind. The only thing that will determine is whether we can work together or not.

[Lordquinton]

41. There are several nobel prizes

but I think Science would cover the whole god question, because that would change everything.

OMG you read that book too! You are very familiar with them and use them whenever possible, I'm glad I can now identify them!

Well, there are many thing I don't respect in religion, the ingrained misogyny, the abuse of children, making people feel like they deserve anything that happens to them, the licence to do whatever they want because they will be saved in the afterlife, I could go on about how much hurt Religion has caused, but I can't be bothered because someone will come along and tell me that a church somewhere doesn't hate gays that much so my argument is invalid, and aren't there some misogynistic atheists you should be dealing with first?

[cbayer]

42. Actually, I don't use them much at all.

I tend to think that logical fallacies are logical fallacies and that they are good only for formal debates, where someone will probably be declared a "winner". There is no winner in this debate.

You don't have to respect anything in organized religion. There are lots of things I don't respect as well. Lots.

I am talking about respect for individuals.

I could go on and on about the good things religion has done. We could even keep score, though that would be fraught with problems.

What difference would it make?

How about we side with both believers and non-believers with whom we share common goals and support them?

[Lordquinton]

43. Do you mean you don't call out fallacies?

or you don't use them, because I just named a few you used, so that's demonstrably false. We're also on a discussion board to, you know, discuss things.

Religion has done some good, but does that out weigh the damage? Are they only able to do that good because they caused the harmful situations in the first place? A big point about these questions is to find out who is actually someone you want to side with, far too often when you point out the gaping flaws in a religious organization is to lash out at you (see people making jokes about how people point out unspeakable crimes of the RCC, instead of pointing them out and saying "Yea, that's bad, we should probably do something about it&quot then that is not someone you want to side with you. Does that make any sense at all?

[cbayer]

44. I don't see them as very valuable. They are all about scoring points.

Not that I don't like to debate and win. I most certainly do. Just ask my husband (or anyone else who knows me).

But on these issues, the win I am looking for is the ability to recognize differences, find common ground and move ahead.

I want to side with people who share my values and goals. It's not that hard to ascertain that. And whether they are christians or muslims or wiccans or atheists makes virtually no difference.

If someone supports a multi-faceted organization that holds some views that I find reprehensible, but they don't personally hold those views, I don't think it's any of my business. That's particularly true if they take the opportunities they have to speak out against them.

But if the RCC has provided some individuals with comfort, care, community, a sense of purpose, meaning, etc., etc., I'm not going to hold them responsible for the "sins" of the organization as a whole.

And I don't side with some individuals on all issues. You may have strong feelings about GLBT civil rights which we share, but be a pro-lifer which we most definitely do not (hypothetical). So, let's work together on GLBT rights.

I have found you to be a reasonable and civil person to talk to. I think we are on the same team for the most part.

[gordianot]

55. I have really enjoyed the conversation especially your posts.

As to Deity I admit that I do not know, to the degree that some traditions of Deity are troubling or down right repulsive to my "opinion" does not motivate me to confront those who hold those beliefs. I find most particularly disturbing those who claim to follow the teachings of an itinerant Carpenter yet in the same breath advocate violence against others. It is clear that from the teachings attributed to this person (or group of persons) conduct was a central theme. There are many different accumulated writings regarding Deity or Non-Deity all of them interesting in different ways and worthy of consideration.

Of particular fascination to me are near death experiences not possible to replicate in a lab but are remarkably similar across cultures and time. The experiences and reactions of blind people reporting visual stimuli for the first time do truly make me wonder. There are neurological explanations but due to the extreme complexities neurology there will not be a definitive answer soon.

I do believe in the miraculous and unexplainable. Due to my cognitive limitations I have to trust the judgments of others as a matter of faith. How can a photon be a particle and wave at the same time? For the truly strange try multiple dimension of space time, interlocking causality directly affected by observation, the entire field of Quantum mechanics. How does inanimate matter organize into something that becomes self aware. How does one particular organism from Africa evolve such profound changes in brain mass and locomotion, physical appearance in the span of 1 million years. The changes that organism made in the tiny span of 100,000 as they migrated from Africa is mind boggling. As a species they are ALL related to a small population that most probably originated in Africa. As they were originating in Africa cousins to this species were inhabiting Europe and Asia it is quite possible that they were assimilated by a virulent strain that originated in Africa.

Whatever your source of belief there are more questions than answers.

[cbayer]

56. Thanks for joining in, gordianot.

I guess that religious beliefs can be malleable enough to lend themselves to good or bad, depending on what one's objectives are.

When used for good, I'm all for it. When used for bad, I think confrontation may be necessary.

NDE's are interesting to me as well. As I have said before, my gut (and training) leads to to think that they are purely neurological events, but I don't think there is data that can support that. So the door remains open, as far as I am concerned.

I also have very sane, very rational, scientifically motivated friends who truly believe that aliens have visited the earth. I haven't personally experienced a single thing that would substantiate that, but who am I to argue with what they say they have experienced. Then again, my favorite movie is Contact, so I think there is a part of me that hopes there is some truth to that and things that may be purely spiritual in nature.

I recently heard a fascinating show about the faith you describe that we place in science. I will never, ever understand advanced physics or cosmology. Yet I trust that there are those that do and that their explanations have some validity.

And I totally agree with your last statement. Every time we open a door by finding an answer, there appears to be many more doors that we didn't even know about.

Don't you just love it!

[gordianot]

60. My take on the Priest.

Obviously nothing as outwardly mysterious as a ghost but still in the realm of the unexplained. As an observer the Priest changed the perceptions of those trying to extricate the woman from the car. Where they were frustrated their perceptions of failure changed creating a different outcome and in this case matter complied. Much like the act of observation the act of measurement seems to have a strange causality on matter. Quantum Physicist are generally not welcome in traditional scientific circles they deal in a realm of abstraction and speculation that is very uncomfortable approaching the realm of religion. Schrodinger and his weird cat come into play.

In 2003 I attended a public open house in an old mansion. Late in the evening a ghost hunting crew came in to do an investigation along with two local police officers. The mansion had a reputation among those who were attempting to restore it, including myself of having strange phenomena. I had never witnessed anything up to that day but heard many stories and had seen the videos of a floating green light. First of all both police radios drained as soon as the police entered the building. They left got recharged batteries re-entered the building and those batteries instantly discharged. Since they could not participate without radios they left. Now I am not a fan of ghost hunting shows but the crew continued to do their thing. In clear view of myself and several others we watched a piece of chert appeared (??) to fly off the subfloor and hit a wall near those attempting to insult any ghosts. I cannot and will never be able to determine the causality of that piece of chert moving. Not to pollute the investigation more I left. Those who tried to extricate the woman from the wrecked car and failed have a similar problem of not being easy to explain. To me being a skeptic is not saying "No" but "I don't know"; as they said on the Red Green Show the 3 words men hate to say.

[cbayer]

61. Your explanation is reasonable.

I think that one's perception of reality can change in a split second when a new variable is introduced. It's fascinating.

I have really enjoyed some of Neil deGrasse Tyson's simplified explanations of physics. He has a real talent for bringing it down to a level people can understand. But it still seems like hocus-pocus at times, and the interplay with religion seems to always be there. Naming something "The God Particle" and how that came about highlights some of that.

It's hard to say "i don't know". That is one of the reasons I push back when people make the case that one is either an atheist or a theist. Taking on one label or the other conveys a sense of knowing, and I'm not comfortable with that at all.

Great story about the haunted house. I once stayed overnight in a haunted house in Louisiana. I was irrationality anxious and very ambivalent about whether I wanted to see something unexplainable or not. In the end, I saw nothing.

There are some companies set up to take people on "Ghost Tours" in the area where I live much of the year. Although I think it is a total hoax, people make reservations far in advance to go on these tours. I think there is a part of human nature that often just wants to believe that there is more than what we know.

And maybe there is. I don't know.

[gordianot]

62. There should be a term for those not being a theist or deist. I lean toward being "human".

[cbayer]

63. I recently adopted the term apatheist.

Although some might put that in the atheist column, I don't. My interpretation of it is this: I don't know if there is a god or not, I don't care if there is a god or not, and whether there is or is not a god would have virtually no impact on my current life.

But human works too.

Off topic, but I love your name. I was once the parliamentarian for an organization and the rules of order we used included the concept of the Gordian Knot. Rarely used, but available if things just became so convoluted that we had to stop and start over.

I like the way you have made a play on words with it.

[gordianot]

64. Too many want to cut the knot an age old tragedy, the analogy I prefer for the human condition.

[No Vested Interest]

65. Isn't agnostic the more common term for what you describe?

Your term apatheist also includes disinterest in the subject, but I don't know if that's really necessary; it could be an implied inference of agnostic.

[cbayer]

66. A couple of things about that.

Using the term agnostic make some people foam at the mouth and go on and on about how one has to be an atheist or a theist and can only use agnostic as a modifier of those terms. I totally disagree with that, but in order to avoid these totally stupid semantic arguments, I decided no to use it.

I hadn't considered that apatheist would indicate a lack of interest in religion as a topic, and I'm not sure I agree that it does. I am very interested in the topic, and, in particular, the intersection of religion and politics. I just don't care if there is or is not a god, but I recognize that others care a great deal.

Anyway, it is with great reluctance that I take any label at all.