There's nothing to investigate. The methods and technologies we already have are more than adequate to show that everything supposedly explained by spirits can more plausibly be explained in more mundane ways.
That's invariably true for anything you can imagine, and therefore not sufficient justification for believing in it today. We're not interested in excuses for why you don't have evidence, or expressions of your hope that someday you will.
Then either get a better translation solution or find someone who speaks your language. You're starting to use this as an excuse for why you don't have to engage your critics.
I have no personal empirical evidence of the existence of spirits, I am just presenting to you something that I consider evidence, for you to analyze!
More gibberish. Deal with the points people have raised.
Yes, and we reject it for the many reasons given. Now deal with the responses to your posts.
This statement has nothing to do with your ongoing complaints that you cannot speak English. This is an English-language forum. If you're going to present your claims here, you must do so in English. If you cannot, you should seek out people who speak your language. If you insist on remaining, you may not continually disclaim your inability to understand the language of this forum as an excuse why you are not obliged to address your critics.
Should I continue to present empirical evidence of the existence of spirits for you to analyze or not? Here in Brazil the belief in spirits is very strong, it is different from the United States!
1. You should deal with the objections raised to what you have presented.
However, skeptics also bear the burden of explaining why so many people across cultures and histories have reported experiences with spirits. Rather than dismissing these experiences out of hand, skeptics must engage with them critically and explore alternative explanations
Man. Woman. Person. Camera. Television.
Which is exactly what happened.
You can make whatever argument you wish and present whatever you think is evidence. But you are obliged to engage your critics with more than just glib, one-sentence statements. You've spent more than thirty pages simply repeating the same short statements over and over again. You aren't paying attention to what anyone else says.
Yes, we all know that. However, social norms are not evidence for something to be factually correct.
Explanations have been provided.
The experiences are not being dismissed "out of hand." The conclusion that those experiences are actually being caused by spirits is challenged on proper grounds. Other hypotheses have a priori plausibility and have evidence to support them. The spirit hypothesis does not. It is based on interpretation or attribution, not objective, testable evidence. Insisting that it must still be the conclusion does not shift the burden of proof.
45% of Americans believe in spirits
So what? That doesn't mean spirits are real.
