Thread: Do you believe in ghosts, and why/not?

I've got fairies living in my underpants drawer. I have no physical evidence for this but I genuinely believe they have colonised there in large numbers. You should all just believe me

Originally Posted by DreamQueen

I've got fairies living in my underpants drawer. I have no physical evidence for this but I genuinely believe they have colonised there in large numbers. You should all just believe me

Well you'd have to be really closed minded not to believe you.
God to think some people would actually require evidence before they accept things..
Its like, i mean how closed minded are the people who work in airports... i hate they way they require you to prove your identity... i mean, cant they just trust everyone?
And i mean, its like the police, why dont they just trust criminals when they say it wasnt them? all this small minded skepticism going to courts and requiring evidence is SO unrealistic... why dont they just open their minds man! I mean, if someone says something it HAS to be true.

Evidence is just for losers.

What has evidence every got us... other than, um, space exploration, the internet, solved crimes, the entire scientific knowledge of hundreds of years, cured diseases, birth control, unravelling the DNA code, evolution etc. etc.
but you know, other than those LAME things, what has evidence ever got anyone?


haha good one DreamQueen

Originally Posted by spaceexplorer

Billions of people belive in different gods. Are they all true?
In the past millions of people belived in the gods Zeus, Ra, Thor etc.
Again, no physical evidence for them, so i take it by your own logic you belive in all those gods too.

Oh and billions believed the earth was flat, without physical evidence.
Were they right?
Or do you believe that too?

As for other reasons...
There are many, many more reasonable explanations for these things, explanations that don't require having to contradict what we already know about the universe. Hallucinations, mental illness, magnetic fields altering human perception, dreams, illness etc. etc. etc.
all far more plausible and hence far more likely.

No, I don't believe in all those gods, but I wouldn't go up to an ancient Greek and say "Your god doesn't exist just because there's no evidence". for all we know, Zeus and all the other may be real.

And just to clear some stuff up in your second paragraph: there weren't even a billion people on earth back then. also, most people DIDN'T think the earth was flat back then. In fact, centuries before Columbus was born, people had crossed the land bridge and Leif Erickson had started settlements in Greenland.

As for other more likely explanations, many people have claimed to see ghosts and very few were asleep, mentally ill, or physically ill. Hallucinations are somewhat plausible, but it's easy to tell a hallucination from something real if you look at it long enough, which people like mediums tend to do. I don't know too much about magnetic fields, but i assume they would affect everyone who is within it, and that doesn't explain why most people don't see the ghosts or any alteration of their perception.

Ghost DO NOT, i repeat, DO NOT, contradict anything we know about the universe. We don't know enough about the human mind (not brain, mind) and spirit to say they are indefinitely attached to a working body. Ghost are more like adding another subject to what we know. like particle physics was a completely new idea, yet contradicted nothing we knew. so ghosts are like particle physics when it was a new concept.

Originally Posted by spaceexplorer

And the simple answer to your question is: we are not the ones making unproven, unlikely or extraordinary claims... it's not our responsibility to PROVE you wrong, it is your responsibility to prove your claim. If i tell you that i can read minds... is it your responsibility to prove i cant? or my responsibility to prove i can? Clearly it would be my responsibility, as im the one making the claim that goes against what is known about the universe.

I see what you mean. but if you were to simply tell me about all the minds that you've read, i would never be convinced, not even a little, until i tested you myself. and it is a lot easier to explain what a person is skeptical about and asks you to explain, rather than explain the entire subject of ghosts in great detail..

Thanks Spaceexplorer. I just knelt by my bed and spoke telepathically to the faires and they said you'll be allowed in to their castle when you die.

To anyone who doesn't believe me, give me one good reason they aren't real?

I feel I must explain something about evidence. Evidence is what is used to prove something. If I say I can see ghosts, my word is evidence. The only difference is it's easy for you to say that it's not good enough. Also, pictures have been taken. these are evidence but you just say it must be photoshoped. Whether or not it's credible doesn't change its status as evidence until it is PROVEN fake.

DreamQueen, I can't positively prove you wrong. No one can unless they look under your bed. the only difference between bed fairies and ghosts is that if you had a poll saying "are there fairies under my bed" i'm pretty sure the majority wouldn't say "Yes".

Originally Posted by DreamQueen

Thanks Spaceexplorer. I just knelt by my bed and spoke telepathically to the faires and they said you'll be allowed in to their castle when you die.

To anyone who doesn't believe me, give me one good reason they aren't real?

I'm afraid that there are pixies living in my guitar case (of which I also have no evidence) however, my type of pixies existing contradict your type of fairies very existence. If my pixies exist then your fairies may not exist. Since my pixies obviously exist your fairies must not(by the definition of the true one true type of pixie). I'm very sorry, but you've been believing in false fairies all along. However the Pixies will accept you into their arms if you accept them as lords of your life.

Originally Posted by TheMind

I feel I must explain something about evidence. Evidence is what is used to prove something. If I say I can see ghosts, my word is evidence. The only difference is it's easy for you to say that it's not good enough. Also, pictures have been taken. these are evidence but you just say it must be photoshoped. Whether or not it's credible doesn't change its status as evidence until it is PROVEN fake.

Photos have been duplicated many times without photoshop. The difference is that some people look at these photos and say "what is the cause" and others don't look for an answer but rather assert the answer that "the cause is ghosts." In the case where "what is the cause" has been asked there is always an answer that requires no mention of ghosts to be in the photo. Once the actual cause was discerned people were able to make similar photos without needing to edit the photo after its capture.

I haven't watched this, but I do know that the man who spoke often gives insightful explanations on things. The title of the video is "How to fool the mind."
It is in light of magicians.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...re+series+fool

I'm sure he'll explain to you how easily a person can be fooled.

Originally Posted by TheMind

No, I don't believe in all those gods, but I wouldn't go up to an ancient Greek and say "Your god doesn't exist just because there's no evidence". for all we know, Zeus and all the other may be real.

Well sorry, but thats just crazy.
So if a MadMan comes up to you and tells you he is the inventor of the banana, do you just believe him, because "for all we know, he may well have invented the banana?"

And just to clear some stuff up in your second paragraph: there weren't even a billion people on earth back then. also, most people DIDN'T think the earth was flat back then. In fact, centuries before Columbus was born, people had crossed the land bridge and Leif Erickson had started settlements in Greenland.

All very interesting, but not really relevant to the point at hand.
As for the number thing, the actually number of humans alive at the time was irrelevant to the point i was making. I used billions just because i was typing fast. The point still remains that no amount of belief makes something more likely. Be it one person or a billion, if you believe something without evidence, then it is open to scrutiny. Is it wrong to want proof?

As for other more likely explanations, many people have claimed to see ghosts and very few were asleep, mentally ill, or physically ill. Hallucinations are somewhat plausible, but it's easy to tell a hallucination from something real if you look at it long enough, which people like mediums tend to do. I don't know too much about magnetic fields, but i assume they would affect everyone who is within it, and that doesn't explain why most people don't see the ghosts or any alteration of their perception.

People can have short lived mental episodes. I'm also amazed that for someone with optical illusions in thier signature that you are not more inclined to understand how easily the human mind can be fooled into seeing something illusionary.

As for hallucinations. They can be every bit as convincing as reality.
I'm assuming you've had a lucid dream right? a LD is a form of hallucination, utterly convincing, is there any reason why the human mind may not have an occasional glitch where the same mental processes used in dreaming are overlayed onto waking reality? Sleep paralysis and the hallucinations that ofen occur within them are one example. In fact, incubus and sucubus were both once belived to be demons or ghosts that caused these experiences. Do you agree with that? or do you take the more modern evidence based explanation that it is sleep paralysis?

Ghost DO NOT, i repeat, DO NOT, contradict anything we know about the universe. We don't know enough about the human mind (not brain, mind) and spirit to say they are indefinitely attached to a working body. Ghost are more like adding another subject to what we know. like particle physics was a completely new idea, yet contradicted nothing we knew. so ghosts are like particle physics when it was a new concept.

I'm no neuroscientist or physics genuis, but im pretty sure the idea of souls, spirits and astral bodies are at odds with all observable and scientific knowledge to date.

Originally Posted by TheMind

I don't believe in ghosts and everything SpaceExplorer says is right

I have this above evidence that you agree with me,
I can see you deleted your original post, but still, you know, people may say that i tampered with the evidence... but just like you said...you know until it's proven that its fake, then well, we'll just have to accept that you agree with me.


Evidence is only one part of the picture and is far more than than personal tesimony or videos on youtube. You can collect evidence on virtually anything,
however if the data dosnt stand up, or is weaker than competing data, then that is how conclusions are drawn.

My point is that, with the very flimsy evidence that believers have, it is overshadowed by the much more compelling and solid evidence against their beliefs.

Thanks. And remember

Originally Posted by TheMind

Whether or not it's credible doesn't change its status as evidence until it is PROVEN fake.

Originally Posted by spaceexplorer

Well sorry, but thats just crazy.
So if a MadMan comes up to you and tells you he is the inventor of the banana, do you just believe him, because "for all we know, he may well have invented the banana?"

the banana has been around too long for that to be relavent. go back and look at what i typed about evidence. this CAN be proven false.

All very interesting, but not really relevant to the point at hand.
As for the number thing, the actually number of humans alive at the time was irrelevant to the point i was making. I used billions just because i was typing fast. The point still remains that no amount of belief makes something more likely. Be it one person or a billion, if you believe something without evidence, then it is open to scrutiny. Is it wrong to want proof?

No, but proof for things like this can be hard to come by. Also, proof is almost always discarded as a fake


People can have short lived mental episodes. I'm also amazed that for someone with optical illusions in thier signature that you are not more inclined to understand how easily the human mind can be fooled into seeing something illusionary.

As for hallucinations. They can be every bit as convincing as reality.
I'm assuming you've had a lucid dream right? a LD is a form of hallucination, utterly convincing, is there any reason why the human mind may not have an occasional glitch where the same mental processes used in dreaming are overlayed onto waking reality? Sleep paralysis and the hallucinations that ofen occur within them are one example. In fact, incubus and sucubus were both once belived to be demons or ghosts that caused these experiences. Do you agree with that? or do you take the more modern evidence based explanation that it is sleep paralysis?

First off, if LDs were so convincing, reality checks wouldn't work. I would go with modern evidence because it CAN be proven.


I'm no neuroscientist or physics genuis, but im pretty sure the idea of souls, spirits and astral bodies are at odds with all observable and scientific knowledge to date.

Souls and spirits are just ideas like the God Particle. there is no evidence but nothing makes sense if it's not real. Are you saying that people have no souls. And just to clear something up, when i said spirit, i just meant life force in general. If we have no life force, that means we're no more that electrons running through the brain

any more questions?

That's a very encouraging thing to look forward to when you die -- becoming a ghost trapped forever in some castle scaring people.
Also don't forget, as Google will show, there are some in a religion who would say that these apparitions are caused by "demon spirits", not the souls of departed humans. If we throw that theory into the mix I see 6 possibilities ..

1) Ghosts are real
2) Ghosts are not real
3) Ghosts may be real
4) Ghosts are in fact manifestations caused by demon spirits
5) Ghosts are glimpses of beings from another dimension (shadow people)
6) Ghosts are images of living people who (if OBE exists) are OBE'ing

I've personally never seen anything, but I believe that many who say that they HAVE, have indeed "seen something". That something we may or may not ever be able to define in this lifetime.

Originally Posted by spaceexplorer

I have this above evidence that you agree with me,
I can see you deleted your original post, but still, you know, people may say that i tampered with the evidence... but just like you said...you know until it's proven that its fake, then well, we'll just have to accept that you agree with me.


Evidence is only one part of the picture and is far more than than personal tesimony or videos on youtube. You can collect evidence on virtually anything,
however if the data dosnt stand up, or is weaker than competing data, then that is how conclusions are drawn.

My point is that, with the very flimsy evidence that believers have, it is overshadowed by the much more compelling and solid evidence against their beliefs.

My point is that there is evidence, whether it's real or not. there is nothing i can say that absolutely proves i didn't post that, but it is very weak evidence since that would mean I've contradicted all my posts. If a person suplies you with pictures and stories from when they saw a ghost, it is weak evidence. All I'm saying is that you cannot complain about there being no evidence.

Originally Posted by TheMind

any more questions?

Sorry, but i think you're misunderstanding us, we're not asking questions, we are making opinions and raising issues that contradict what you are saying.
You saying "any more questions?" comes across as if you think you know everything and are educating "the idiots"
I'm afraid that's not the case chap, we don't actually agree with you. And I personaly am not convinced in the slightest by your arguments.

First off, if LDs were so convincing, reality checks wouldn't work. I would go with modern evidence because it CAN be proven.

If dreams were not convincing, then reality checks wouldnt be required. Every dream would be lucid because we'd always spot them as dreams. The truth of the matter is that dreams are convincing in how real they seem, feel, look, smell etc... only certain elements of dreams are unstable and thus can be used as reality checks. I've not heard of many ghosts wearing digital watches, so the unstable elements of dreams arnt really something that can be considered in this arguent. The simple fact is that dreams, hallucinations and the myriad of glitches in human perception can be every bit as convincing as the data recived through the senses.

As someone who has the spinning illusion as thier avatar, surely you must understand that seeing isnt beleiving.

Oh by the way, this post wasnt a question.

Originally Posted by TheMind

any more questions?

Yes. I have a question. Do you believe there are fairies living in my underpants drawer and if not why not? Thanks

Originally Posted by Lucid Lobster

That's a very encouraging thing to look forward to when you die -- becoming a ghost trapped forever in some castle scaring people.
Also don't forget, as Google will show, there are some in a religion who would say that these apparitions are caused by "demon spirits", not the souls of departed humans. If we throw that theory into the mix I see 6 possibilities ..

1) Ghosts are real
2) Ghosts are not real
3) Ghosts may be real
4) Ghosts are in fact manifestations caused by demon spirits
5) Ghosts are glimpses of beings from another dimension (shadow people)
6) Ghosts are images of living people who (if OBE exists) are OBE'ing

I've personally never seen anything, but I believe that many who say that they HAVE, have indeed "seen something". That something we may or may not ever be able to define in this lifetime.

now this is a post i can agree with. 3) Ghost may be real:that is as good as proof will get us now. 4) Ghosts are demons: nothing says that they aren't. 6) Ghosts are OBEs: Many say that during Etheric Projection the projecting person can be seen as if they were a ghost.

Originally Posted by spaceexplorer

Sorry, but i think you're misunderstanding us, we're not asking questions, we are making opinions and raising issues that contradict what you are saying.
You saying "any more questions?" comes across as if you think you know everything and are educating "the idiots"
I'm afraid that's not the case chap, we don't actually agree with you. And I personaly am not convinced in the slightest by your arguments.

The only reason i put that is because your entire post can't be within a quote, sorry

If dreams were not convincing, then reality checks wouldnt be required. Every dream would be lucid because we'd always spot them as dreams. The truth of the matter is that dreams are convincing in how real they seem, feel, look, smell etc... only certain elements of dreams are unstable and thus can be used as reality checks. I've not heard of many ghosts wearing digital watches, so the unstable elements of dreams arnt really something that can be considered in this arguent. The simple fact is that dreams, hallucinations and the myriad of glitches in human perception can be every bit as convincing as the data recived through the senses.

As someone who has the spinning illusion as thier avatar, surely you must understand that seeing isnt beleiving.

Oh by the way, this post wasnt a question.

I didn't say they aren't convincing. I said if you look at it long enough you will see something wrong with the hallucination, just as you will eventually see that a dream isn't real. If dreams were COMPLETELY convincing, there would be no DILDs.

any more statements

Originally Posted by DreamQueen

Yes. I have a question. Do you believe there are fairies living in my underpants drawer and if not why not? Thanks

look back, I've already answered that in an earlier post.

Ok,

This time around i do have a question.

If you saw someone walk into your room, and out through the wall...
What would you consider it to be that you saw?

And if your answer is "A Ghost", then Why? Why would you jump to that conclusion before any other?

See, I'd not rule out ghosts completely, but they would be very low on my list of likely causes for the experience.
The first thing i'd ask myself is "Am i dreaming?"
the second would be "have i been spiked with LSD?"
the third would be "Am i having some kind of mental issues?"
the fourth would be "Is someone playing a prank on me?"

I could go on and on, but i know that it would require me to rule out the more likely explanations before i chose one of the least likely explanations, such as a ghost. Oh and dont get me wrong, i'd love for ghosts to be real,
but my wanting them to be real shouldnt cloud my judment or make me skip over more likely answers... just because they dont fit my world view or wants. Ghosts would prove life after death, and what sain human WOULDNT want that to be true? I would love it. BUT, i just think that its a pretty extraordinary claim, and requires extraordinary evidence.

It seems to me that a lot of believers in such things, always jump to the conclusion that backs up thier world view, without addressing the issues that would contradict it first, even if they are the more plausable explanations.
We all do it to some extent, but it seems to me that it is a dangerous path to not question your own motives.
Like i already said, i'd accept the ghost explanation with the right amount of evidence, and after having ruled out more likely explanations first. Would you accept being wrong about ghosts?

Originally Posted by TheMind

any more statements

I'm sure you thought that was a really clever response.
But you've disturbingly missed the point that what you've just written, still has the underlying assumption that you are the one who "knows" and that everyone else is a fool who is waiting with baited breath for the "guru" to educate us.

Oh sorry, I didn't quite catch your answer. Could you please let me know just quickly to save me searching through, is it

• yes
• no
• maybe

Just a simple, quick, one word response is all I need. Thanks.

Originally Posted by spaceexplorer

Ok,

This time around i do have a question.

If you saw someone walk into your room, and out through the wall...
What would you consider it to be that you saw?

And if your answer is "A Ghost", then Why? Why would you jump to that conclusion before any other?

See, I'd not rule out ghosts completely, but they would be very low on my list of likely causes for the experience.
The first thing i'd ask myself is "Am i dreaming?"
the second would be "have i been spiked with LSD?"
the third would be "Am i having some kind of mental issues?"
the fourth would be "Is someone playing a prank on me?"

I could go on and on, but i know that it would require me to rule out the more likely explanations before i chose one of the least likely explanations, such as a ghost. Oh and dont get me wrong, i'd love for ghosts to be real,
but my wanting them to be real shouldnt cloud my judment or make me skip over more likely answers... just because they dont fit my world view or wants. Ghosts would prove life after death, and what sain human WOULDNT want that to be true? I would love it. BUT, i just think that its a pretty extraordinary claim, and requires extraordinary evidence.

Well, before dream views i would have thought ghost first, but now I'd do a reality check. Then, if it wasn't a dream i would think ghosts and other things. I have no drug connections and wouldn't know how to get LSD even if i wanted it. If I thought I saw a ghost, i would absolutely get myself checked for metal problems. I probably wouldn't consider a prank. And just to be clear, all this thinking would be after getting a new pair of underwear.

I could not agree more with this post. I would not cry wolf without checking other possibilities. And I'm sure that any non-attention-whore would do the same. But some people DO exhaust all possibilities, and then they say ghost.

Originally Posted by DreamQueen

Oh sorry, I didn't quite catch your answer. Could you please let me know just quickly to save me searching through, is it

• yes
• no
• maybe

Just a simple, quick, one word response is all I need. Thanks.

maybe

Originally Posted by TheMind

Well, before dream views i would have thought ghost first, but now I'd do a reality check. Then, if it wasn't a dream i would think ghosts and other things. I have no drug connections and wouldn't know how to get LSD even if i wanted it. If I thought I saw a ghost, i would absolutely get myself checked for metal problems. I probably wouldn't consider a prank. And just to be clear, all this thinking would be after getting a new pair of underwear.

I could not agree more with this post. I would not cry wolf without checking other possibilities. And I'm sure that any non-attention-whore would do the same. But some people DO exhaust all possibilities, and then they say ghost.

Ok, well at least we are on a similar wave length now.
I have yet to meet anyone who has gone through all the possibilities. If you could point me in the direction of them, I would very much appreciate it.
You see, I'd love to believe in life after death, but its a pretty big issue isnt it? I wouldnt want to make assumptions that gamble with my very existence on flimsy evidence. If there is no life after death, then i almost certainly need to get everythign out of this life, enjoy every second. If there is, then well that changes things. The problem is, if i accept life after death without sufficent evidence, then i am basically gambling my entire life!

Also if there are ghosts and life after death, im going to feel a lot more self conscious when having sex or looking at porn on the internet, with one hand down my pants lol

Truth is, I am yet to find any evidence that is convincing enough, despite the fact that i would be overjoyed to know that this life isnt all i have, and i get to see my dead friends and relatives again. So, by saying i dont believe, i am actually having to accept something I'd rather NOT be true. Do you see that it takes a lot of personal strength to weigh up the evidence, and accept that what you want isnt true?
Skeptics are not closed minded, they are just painfully honest with themselves, even when they would rather be wrong.