I neither agree or disagree with pascals wager btw. I lean towards the agreeing side for those who don't understand both sides which is likely the majority, idk, I'm not an expert on that.
In some cultures marriage comes before love. It's very closed minded to believe religion can't come before belief. I find that close minded and flawed. I agree with that on pascals wager.
Secondly, to truly say you live a fuller life on either side requires actually living on both sides. If this is not true, then I must have the biggest "thing thing" on this forum, dispite not actually knowing that or having the desire to know that. (Gotta love or hate my sick sense of humor.) Secondly, unfortunately this dosn't apply to the metephor I've given but de gustibus non est disputandum. "There is no accounting for the tastes" and to say you live a fuller life with or without religion is a matter of opinion and this can only be accurate once you have and have not live with religion. There are also a lot of religions to argue this with.
You could even say both sides of the argument are wrong (this is why I neither agree nor disagree -->) until they've experience both sides and even then they would only be right for themselve because it's all a matter of opinion.
My point on paranormal research is, not only is calling this a wager not only poetic, it's exactly what it is. Most people perfer to take the best bet so if you look for signs proving and disproving you will likely find something. I understand the wager implies there is nothing to lose and everything to gain but you can't ignore the anti pascal wager arguments and I think signs are worth taking into consideration.
Off Topic:
I will be opening up a thread on that soon. I don't want to find the resources to state a case at this moment (feel free to open one before me). However, I will say to really look at what your lumping the evidence in with. Firstly, everyone can look at it the evidence at any time, compared to sporadic sleep parylization, or guardian angel accounts. It is extremely tangible. Secondly, the sheer amount of it and with the new technology towards it, that you likely don't know of because you seem disinterested in the evidence being anything other than hog wash (just my first thoughts), and the quality, is greatly reducing the chance of this being the product of "suggestion."
You can certaintly look at one piece of evidence, call it luck, and say it's your mind playing tricks on you. Look at the entire evidence and each piece supports the next as plausible. Also, these guys aren't reinventing the wheel. They're going to previously known haunted locations and applying new technologies to gain more evidence. They're layering evidence to make skeptics sound like their mind screwing them selfs into disbelief as much as people "make shit up" and mind screw themselves into belief on other things.
Though there is some amount of proof this evidence is ghosts, mostly audio proves that which unfortunately, IMO is the shakiest evidence because this is where the power of suggestion stand the highest risk of being prevelent. The evidence of it being ghost is intelligent answers recorded. Not just "ghosts" randomly saying "hi, die, kill, death, the devil, help me, etc etc" but answering to questions such as "what is your name" and investigators getting answers such as "Bridget." Which was a relevent name during the Salem investigations. Then asking for a last name and getting "bishop." This is extremely relevent because Bridget Bishop was the first victim in the Salem witch trials. However, the ears are more succeptable to suggestion than a photo. It really just depends how much this evidence needs to be layered and by how many different people before you say, ok... some of this is undisputable.
