Ghosts

[Bluesman]

Well... we have a thread about aliens, so why not ghosts? What do people here think about ghosts, spirits, or the paranormal in general?

Personally I believe that something of this sort exists. My family had the task of cleaning out my uncle's house after he died, and LOTS of strange things happened. Lights coming on, strange noises, objects being in different spots when we'd go in the next day, and a room being cleaned when no one was in the house. I went from a huge skeptic to a believer pretty fast after these things happened...

I think this should be pretty interesting, and I'd love to hear everyone's opinions.

[embers]

Meh, I've yet to see some old Carl Sagan documentary that explains how things can appear and disappear without a cause. But as for dead beings sticking around and so on, no, they're dead.

[Peace God]

There's a reason that ghost and spirits are so hard to find. They don't exist.

I saddens me that so many people, who are normally smart, surrender their logic to superstition like this. I blame the power of the human brain and the encouragement of faith (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=92284)-based and superstitious beliefs in our society.

[Bluesman]

Honestly I understand where you guys are coming from. It took me experiencing... well something... firsthand to believe any of it. I do believe that there is more fake "ghosts" than reals, but I can say for sure that there's some weird shit out there that no human can explain by scientific means.

[Amnesiac]

There's a reason that ghost and spirits are so hard to find. They don't exist.

I saddens me that so many people, who are normally smart, surrender their logic to superstition like this. I blame the power of the human brain and the encouragement of faith (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=92284)-based and superstitious beliefs in our society.

Perfectly worded.

Contrary to the popular phrase, seeing is not always believing.

[embers]

Contrary to the popular phrase, seeing is not always believing.

Unless you're Carl Sagan and seeing fragments from the fourth dimension (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnURElCzGc0).

[Amnesiac]

Unless you're Carl Sagan and seeing fragments from the fourth dimension (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnURElCzGc0).

That amused me. However, it also interested me.

[Quahog]

Ghosts do exist. The second story doors in our house. always sound like someone is knocking on them. Ghosts do exist.

[Amnesiac]

Ghosts do exist. The second story doors in our house. always sound like someone is knocking on them. Ghosts do exist.

Are you being sarcastic? I sure hope so.

[Jess]

I don't believe in ghosts...but maybe that will change when and if I experience something strange...

[Sage]

People want to believe those things exist, which is why believers will often cite unexplained phenomena as positive evidence when the two are not one in the same.

[Modus Operandi]

The capacity of the human mind to delude itself continually astounds me. I simply cannot believe that there are 'spirits' or whatever you want to call them that linger on earth.

[ponygon101]

I don't know whether these exist or not but I like to believe they do. It makes life more exciting to know that there's something out there that cannot be explained by science or any other logical means.

[Scooby Dooby Drew]

I don't know whether these exist or not but I like to believe they do. It makes life more exciting to know that there's something out there that cannot be explained by science or any other logical means.
Yeah but.... everything CAN be explained by logical means
Otherwise it's not possible :/
It all leads back to the laws of physics, nothing happens for no reason, and it's just stupid to assume there are ghosts because we don't always know the reasons for something happening.

(on an unrelated note, your siggy is hilarious xD)

[Name]

If you see a ghost your obviously imagining it, dreaming or your just tripped major acid

[Quahog]

Are you being sarcastic? I sure hope so.

Does it sound like I am? Ghosts are prone to make noises/movement. Doors being shut. Things being moved. How is that being sarcastic? I believe in the paranormal/afterlife.

[Deathwingo0o]

Can't prove it does or does not exist. Can only prove most people don't bother about it.

[insanity]

of course they exist, most people wont believe so they do there best to block them out. but of course they are there, you dont need to prove anything O.O

[Scooby Dooby Drew]

of course they exist, most people wont believe so they do there best to block them out. but of course they are there, you dont need to prove anything O.O
..............................Excuse me?
You're kidding right?
You expect me to believe something as ridiculous as ghosts without any evidence to back up your claim?
If it is so obvious they exist, please explain to me why at least.

[insanity]

no its possible to see them and sense there presense, I dont care if any one else belives or not so why should I prove something that to me is obviously true, when I cant think of any way to prove something that to me, my family and others I know is so obviously there and part of life. and lol it isnt really ridiculious if you think of it, it seem completely logical to me (:

[Magus]

There's a reason that ghost and spirits are so hard to find. They don't exist.Exactly This.

Not to mention, I never had an occurrence that can be defined as "supernatural", because, I have a skeptical and a rational thinking and sober mind.

Don't let your mind fool you.

[insanity]

see ^ if you keep such a firm believe they dont exist and leave no room for doubt, of course you will never see anything because your mind will dismiss it straight away.

[Syvelocin]

I don't deny anything until I'm sure it doesn't exist.

I think there's some kind of energy out there. To say it's dead people hanging around sounds a bit farfetched to me.

Call me crazy, but I believe everything is possible until I'm thoroughly convinced that it isn't. Humans don't understand as much as they think they do. Science and accepted logic hasn't ALWAYS been right. That's why theories and laws are modified when we discover something new.

Just because it sounds like it treds too far into the fantasy category, everyone denies it. I can't really comprehend this. Until there's actual proof that something DOESN'T exist, I will never deny it.

[Peace God]

see ^ if you keep such a firm believe they dont exist and leave no room for doubt, of course you will never see anything because your mind will dismiss it straight away.
If your saying that we try to avoid having our minds play tricks on us, then yes.

...I have a skeptical and a rational thinking and sober mind.

Me too...well, 2 out of 3 at least.

[John Marston]

..............................Excuse me?
You're kidding right?
You expect me to believe something as ridiculous as ghosts without any evidence to back up your claim?
If it is so obvious they exist, please explain to me why at least.

Why is it so ridiculous. How about this: would you be more likely to believe they existed if I suggested that it was simply a parallel universe?
In any case, I have experience and I do believe they exist. I'm not going to explain my experiences because, as I have seen, people just don't believe and there's no point in explaining MY experience to an underexperienced person (for this issue).

In this case, the saying 'seeing is believing' is rather turned into 'experiencing is believing'

[John Marston]

Also, why do people believe that they don't exist when they haven't experienced and try to like call upon an experience at their will. I think that would give a spirit less need (and want less) to actually grant you your experience. Would you like to be called upon to do something drastic for something that doesn't believe in you in the first place. It would be like having a slave but highly disbelieving that he/she can do the things you command him/her to, and letting that fact be known.

[John Marston]

Well I sure as hell feel involved now.

[John Marston]

I don't deny anything until I'm sure it doesn't exist.

I think there's some kind of energy out there. To say it's dead people hanging around sounds a bit farfetched to me.

Call me crazy, but I believe everything is possible until I'm thoroughly convinced that it isn't. Humans don't understand as much as they think they do. Science and accepted logic hasn't ALWAYS been right. That's why theories and laws are modified when we discover something new.

Just because it sounds like it treds too far into the fantasy category, everyone denies it. I can't really comprehend this. Until there's actual proof that something DOESN'T exist, I will never deny it.

Rith has the right idea. Instead of an instant dismissal of something that sounds unlikely and crazy, wait til you know 100% that it is not possible.
(i'm not a big debater but far, i'm becaming pretty passionate about this topic)

[Sage]

People want to believe those things exist, which is why believers will often cite unexplained phenomena as positive evidence when the two are not one in the same.

I still insist that people who want to believe will take any personal account, story, or odd occurrence as confirmation of their beliefs that were never fully explained or justified to begin with. A number of posters in this thread are proving my point rather efficiently.

You can't claim you believe in ghosts before explaining exactly what a ghost is. You then have to justify your definition of ghost and explain how you know your definition of one is accurate. You would then have to defend your definition of a ghost from other believers accounts of the supernatural that may conflict with yours. You would then have to provide a way for people who want to observe a ghost to do so under conditions that can be replicated- and no, claiming that any failure to make contact with a ghost comes from a skeptic's insincerity is not an acceptable or sophisticated defense of your belief.

I am really not impressed with a lot of you right now.

[Nevermore]

I think that ghosts are imprints of souls. More of left over energy that we can see in some way. Like a footprint. However I'm not tirely 100% sure. It's more of 45%. :D
Anything is possible with Jesus and Black magic!
However seriously, I can't deny it, nor can I completely beleive in it. Anything is possible though.

[Fourth Dimension]

I totally 100% believe in them due to my own experances

[John Marston]

I totally 100% believe in them due to my own experances

Same.

[Suicune]

http://images.wikia.com/pokemon/images/d/d4/MissingNo.GhostSprite.png

My experiences have made me believe in ghosts, however science has always proved these experiences wrong.
But somethings I've never been able to explain...

[Sage]

I like to think that I've won when nobody addresses a bloody word I'm saying.

[John Marston]

I like to think that I've won when nobody addresses a bloody word I'm saying.

Everybody is trying to dismiss how much your pwning us people who believe in ghosts by NOT acknowledging your here. But I'm adress your words, kinda. Happy now? =P

[Sage]

Happy now? =P

No, considering this is getting off topic when you're just addressing my complaint and not a single one of my actual arguments.

[John Marston]

Well, I'm too tired to argue so ima leave. (to get things KINDA back on track) I believe in ghosts due to experiences of my own.

KBai4Nao

[Vonn]

Their existence has not yet been confirmed or denied. Nobody here is right or wrong.

[Bluesman]

your just tripped major acid

Lol... love it :)

[Bluesman]

I don't deny anything until I'm sure it doesn't exist.

I think there's some kind of energy out there. To say it's dead people hanging around sounds a bit farfetched to me.

Call me crazy, but I believe everything is possible until I'm thoroughly convinced that it isn't. Humans don't understand as much as they think they do. Science and accepted logic hasn't ALWAYS been right. That's why theories and laws are modified when we discover something new.

Just because it sounds like it treds too far into the fantasy category, everyone denies it. I can't really comprehend this. Until there's actual proof that something DOESN'T exist, I will never deny it.

Exactly... too many people say "since science can't explain it, it doesn't exist." Look at science just 50 years ago. It couldn't explain some of the things that we take for granted today.

[greekboy]

I believe in evidence based science and none of this stuff fits in. What always amazes me is how many otherwise apparently sane and normal people seem to be completely irrational about ghosts, angels and the like. And the people who say that just becuase we don't understand doesn't mean that it is not real need to learn some rational thought processes. If your under 5 and fairy stories are a large part of your life, then fine. But once you break 6 then please grow up

[Amnesiac]

Exactly... too many people say "since science can't explain it, it doesn't exist." Look at science just 50 years ago. It couldn't explain some of the things that we take for granted today.

That's the problem. Science can explain all of the ridiculous things that Sage and I are watching you guys spew onto the Internet. It's called neurology. As explained in Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion:

Constructing models is something the human brain is very good at. When we are asleep it is called dreaming; when we are awake we call it imagination or, when it is exceptionally vivid, hallucination. As Chapter 10 will show, children who have "imaginary friends" sometimes see them clearly, exactly as if they were real. If we are gullible, we don't recognize hallucination or lucid dreaming for what it is and we claim to have seen or heard a ghost; or an angel; or God; or - especially if we happen to be young, female and Catholic - the Virgin Mary. Such visions and manifestations are certainly not good grounds for believing that ghosts or angels, gods or virgins, are actually there.

[Scooby Dooby Drew]

Why is it so ridiculous. How about this: would you be more likely to believe they existed if I suggested that it was simply a parallel universe?
In any case, I have experience and I do believe they exist. I'm not going to explain my experiences because, as I have seen, people just don't believe and there's no point in explaining MY experience to an underexperienced person (for this issue).

In this case, the saying 'seeing is believing' is rather turned into 'experiencing is believing'
I'm willing to have an open mind to the issue if you would actually argue your side, but just saying "experiencing is believing" isn't a suitable argument.
(See below)

I still insist that people who want to believe will take any personal account, story, or odd occurrence as confirmation of their beliefs that were never fully explained or justified to begin with. A number of posters in this thread are proving my point rather efficiently.

You can't claim you believe in ghosts before explaining exactly what a ghost is. You then have to justify your definition of ghost and explain how you know your definition of one is accurate. You would then have to defend your definition of a ghost from other believers accounts of the supernatural that may conflict with yours. You would then have to provide a way for people who want to observe a ghost to do so under conditions that can be replicated- and no, claiming that any failure to make contact with a ghost comes from a skeptic's insincerity is not an acceptable or sophisticated defense of your belief.

I am really not impressed with a lot of you right now.
This.


The least you could do Affiliations, and all the others who vehemently claim ghosts are real, would be to explain your experiences, and preferably provide some sort of explanation as to what you think a ghost is and how they are possible.
Saying that seeing is believing is about the same as saying "I can provide no logical, reasonable, nor rational explanation for this, but I choose to believe in it anyways."

The reason why I think ghosts don't exist:
Ghosts are supposedly imprints of a person's soul left behind after death.
Well, a person's consciousness is made up of neurons firing off in the brain, forming coherent thoughts. This means that a person's mind is in fact a part of their body, when their body dies, so does their mind. This means that "souls" don't exist.
Ergo, an imprint of a soul couldn't possibly be left behind, as a soul is a fictional object. (or at best it is a synonym for "mind", but all the same, it would be dead along with the body)

Even working under the assumption that my logic is wrong, and souls (as a separate entity from the body) do exist, I can see no way that an imprint of one could be left behind. I'm not dismissing it as impossible, but there is nothing in modern science that could really back it up, as no one completely agrees to what a soul is or even if they exist.

Commander Awesome pretty much summed up people who think they encounter a ghost pretty well.

If you'd like to prove me wrong, go ahead. (I probably am wrong anyways XD)
I'll admit I don't know everything, and I really would like to learn if some one knows more than me.

[Sage]

Ghosts are supposedly imprints of a person's soul left behind after death.
Well, a person's consciousness is made up of neurons firing off in the brain, forming coherent thoughts. This means that a person's mind is in fact a part of their body, when their body dies, so does their mind. This means that "souls" don't exist.)

I generally agree with you but I'll have to make a few amendments due to your word choice. First, you've defined a ghost as an 'imprint of a soul left after death', and while you are entitled to do so, there's no way of arguing that definition as any more accurate and legitimate than any other.

Second, while your explanation of consciousness is correct, that in itself does not in any way debunk the possibility of "souls" existing- and just because I'm sure a believer will want to quote me on that and take my words out of context, I'll also advise not to be too excited. The following summarizes my position on this:

While the existence of anything can never be entirely confirmed or denied, you should always assume it does not until given good reason to think it does.

That's the only rational way you can go about analyzing the paranormal or any part of reality. You cannot take a single occurrence for which you have no explanation and assume, consequently, that the lack of a scientific explanation is evidence of a supernatural one. Lack of explanation means lack of explanation. I can't stress this enough or put it any more simply.

Throughout all of human history we have attributed countless phenomena to supernatural or divine explanations, and all throughout this debate, I've seen believers do that. Whatever their "experiences" are (which have conveniently been left vague, but I digress), they can be scientifically tested under controlled conditions. Every single thing we have ever explained through spirits and ghosts in the past can be explained by perfectly natural causes today- not a single thing ever claimed to be supernatural and tested has ended up confirming the existence of any paranormal activity or phenomenon.

Believers believe because they want to. Possessive children will hold their blankets and bottles closely and only let go when they themselves are ready to do so.

[Syvelocin]

I've personally never experienced anything, and if I did I have shrugged it off as I see things on a regular basis with my hallucinations. I'm not saying there are such things as ghosts, but I do believe there are things we can't explain, or at least can't come up with the correct explanation for them, and until we can, I don't see the reason behind denying it. Let them believe in ghosts, God, the magical flying toaster of prosperity, so be it. No one's minds will be changed obviously.

[Sage]

I've personally never experienced anything, and if I did I have shrugged it off as I see things on a regular basis with my hallucinations. I'm not saying there are such things as ghosts, but I do believe there are things we can't explain, or at least can't come up with the correct explanation for them, and until we can, I don't see the reason behind denying it. Let them believe in ghosts, God, the magical flying toaster of prosperity, so be it. No one's minds will be changed obviously.

Yes, god forbid I advocate rational discourse. How dare I try to reach out and convince people that it is better to only believe in things that can be proven and justified. I must be so heinously misguided and cruel as to strip away the poor delusions of my (and I use this word loosely) peers.

[Syvelocin]

I love ROTW.

Well, quite honestly, your intentions confuse me. You want to reach out to people? Does it benefit you, bring you joy to convert people to your beliefs? But I guess I can't predict your actions off of the philosophy you say you follow.

Believers in the paranormal will not just reject it now that you've denied their side of the arguement. They think they've seen something, and since they judge it that way in the beginning, their feelings about it being something paranormal will grow, never going backwards. They're not providing much, just as the other side isn't providing much other than calling delusion.

[Sage]

just as the other side isn't providing much other than calling delusion.

I made it perfectly clear how they can justify their beliefs. All they need to do is:

1) Define what a 'ghost' is.
2) Explain why their definition of a 'ghost' is the most accurate definition.
3) Explain how they came to this knowledge.

That's it. Why has no one done this? Is it so absurd to think that, oh, I don't know... they have no answers? Every single time someone dares to apply critical thinking and rationality to this subject, they're met with nothing but wives tales and cryptic warnings and hints of some long lost, unfathomable dark knowledge. Give me a damned break.

There. If any believers want to make headway in this debate, I've dumbed my argument down to just three questions. I even numbered them. Now can I get some bloody answers, or am I not cool enough to be enlightened in the spoOooOooky realm of knowledge?

[insanity]

well okay then, I will justify my beliefs.... (theese are just the opinions of a 14yr old though..)

1) you know how everything is made up of energy? well I believe some of this energy you are made of sometimes gets left in places or around people or objects that were important to you as youve gone through life. When your dead, people who maybe extra sensitive to the energy around them pick up on the diffrence in energy. Like memorys. This can be seen as lights colours or sensed. sometime when someone hasnt passed over yet or stuck on earth they can also been seen and communicated with.

I dont believe in the ghosts you see in your typical kids cartoon which shows a white thing that floats and makes creepy sounds... that to me isnt a ghost. Ghosts arnt spooky and are just part of life.


2) I dont believe my theorys the best, its just what I believe at the moment. Everyone has diffrent believes and this is just mine.



3) how I came to this knowledge? I have seen a ghost, it scared the fuck out of me, but it was there. Accepting the possibilitey is the first step. I know a lady that talks to sees and senses ghosts, bad energy and auras it is scary how accurately she can tell you about someone or something, I have wittnessed this first hand. When you actually look into the subject with a OPEN MIND you will find that it is perfectly reasinable.



and this is just my belief. there is so much more ideas out there, but this is just what I think at the moment. Its one of them things that cant be proven yet, and this is just what I currently belief, it could change at any time...

[Sage]

1) you know how everything is made up of energy? well I believe some of this energy you are made of sometimes gets left in places or around people or objects that were important to you as youve gone through life.
Energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy) is the capability of one object to produce change on another object. Once you are dead, you lose most energy. You lay there, in the ground, taking up space until worms and things eat you alive.

When your dead, people who maybe extra sensitive to the energy around them pick up on the diffrence in energy. Like memorys.
That's not how energy works. Memories are a function of your brain, and once you die, your brain ceases activity. No memories.

This can be seen as lights colours or sensed.
No, you're dead. I just explained this.

sometime when someone hasnt passed over yet or stuck on earth they can also been seen and communicated with.
1) Define 'passing over.'
2) Explain why this happens.
3) Explain how you know this happens.

2) I dont believe my theorys the best, its just what I believe at the moment. Everyone has diffrent believes and this is just mine.
And what I'm advocating is that if your beliefs can't stand up to critical analysis then you should search for more rational explanations.

3) how I came to this knowledge? I have seen a ghost,
But just seeing anything isn't enough to give you a clear understanding of it. You may see something strange and call it a ghost, but you don't know very much about it. Think of it this way.

I've never seen a tomato before. One day, I see a tomato. It just appeared before me, for a few seconds, spooked me out, and disappeared. Am I then, from that experience (since you lot seem to love that word) qualified to talk about what a tomato is, how it comes into existence, what it does, or any qualities besides what my eyes observed while in a distressed state of mind?

No.

it scared the fuck out of me, but it was there.
But what was it? You call it a ghost, but your very definition of a ghost isn't physically possible.

Accepting the possibilitey is the first step.
Accepting any possibility without analysis is the first step to a lot of things: Many of them unpleasant.

I know a lady that talks to sees and senses ghosts, bad energy and auras it is scary how accurately she can tell you about someone or something, I have wittnessed this first hand.
First hand accounts mean nothing in a debate setting.

When you actually look into the subject with a OPEN MIND you will find that it is perfectly reasinable.
There's a difference between keeping an open mind and willingly deciding to not question things deeply. I recommend you watch this.

T69TOuqaqXI

Its one of them things that cant be proven yet,
It is by definition irrational to believe in things that cannot be proven.

[greekboy]

Energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy) is the capability of one object to produce change on another object. Once you are dead, you lose most energy. You lay there, in the ground, taking up space until worms and things eat you alive.


That's not how energy works. Memories are a function of your brain, and once you die, your brain ceases activity. No memories.


No, you're dead. I just explained this.


1) Define 'passing over.'
2) Explain why this happens.
3) Explain how you know this happens.


And what I'm advocating is that if your beliefs can't stand up to critical analysis then you should search for more rational explanations.


But just seeing anything isn't enough to give you a clear understanding of it. You may see something strange and call it a ghost, but you don't know very much about it. Think of it this way.

I've never seen a tomato before. One day, I see a tomato. It just appeared before me, for a few seconds, spooked me out, and disappeared. Am I then, from that experience (since you lot seem to love that word) qualified to talk about what a tomato is, how it comes into existence, what it does, or any qualities besides what my eyes observed while in a distressed state of mind?

No.


But what was it? You call it a ghost, but your very definition of a ghost isn't physically possible.


Accepting any possibility without analysis is the first step to a lot of things: Many of them unpleasant.


First hand accounts mean nothing in a debate setting.


There's a difference between keeping an open mind and willingly deciding to not question things deeply. I recommend you watch this.

T69TOuqaqXI


It is by definition irrational to believe in things that cannot be proven.

Hey,I really appreciate you pushing the point on this. My own multi-thread answering skills are fairly weak so I dare not attempt to do so because I keep getting a bollocking for multi-posting.

The really depressing bit is how strong these morons hold these ridiculous beliefs. Can we agree on puberty then, instead of 5 or 6? cheers.

[Fourth Dimension]

Their existence has not yet been confirmed or denied. Nobody here is right or wrong.

totally agreed me personally i have experienced things that some people would say cant be explained but i am 100% certin of what it is my friends and i live for this stuff

[Sage]

i have experienced things that some people would say cant be explained but i am 100% certin of what it is

Did you not watch the video just posted or read any posts in this thread from anyone who doesn't agree with you? Claims like that don't mean anything in a debate setting, and even on their own are fallacious.

[Fourth Dimension]

Did you not watch the video just posted or read any posts in this thread from anyone who doesn't agree with you? Claims like that don't mean anything in a debate setting, and even on their own are fallacious.

i apologize for not watching them but the state my laptop is in youtube videos crash my computer but i do have the links to them bookmarked and next week when my computer is running normally again i will watch them and get back to you on them

[Sage]

i apologize for not watching them but the state my laptop is in youtube videos crash my computer but i do have the links to them bookmarked and next week when my computer is running normally again i will watch them and get back to you on them

Almost everything in it has already been covered in the handful of posts I've made in this thread that most people have little interest in responding to.

You can't take an unexplained experience and claim it is evidence of a specific claim: ie, the existence of ghosts. You can't claim to know what it is simply because you don't know what it is. That's nonsensical.

[Syvelocin]

I made it perfectly clear how they can justify their beliefs. All they need to do is:

1) Define what a 'ghost' is.
2) Explain why their definition of a 'ghost' is the most accurate definition.
3) Explain how they came to this knowledge.

That's it. Why has no one done this? Is it so absurd to think that, oh, I don't know... they have no answers? Every single time someone dares to apply critical thinking and rationality to this subject, they're met with nothing but wives tales and cryptic warnings and hints of some long lost, unfathomable dark knowledge. Give me a damned break.

There. If any believers want to make headway in this debate, I've dumbed my argument down to just three questions. I even numbered them. Now can I get some bloody answers, or am I not cool enough to be enlightened in the spoOooOooky realm of knowledge?

I got that, and again, I'm not an exact believer. I'm wondering why you're requesting their side when, "other than calling delusion" on them, talking about logic and shit, you guys aren't saying a damned thing, of course other than your reply to Numbed. I'm ready for the evidence against the paranormal. While I agree with most of your points in that last post and actually thoroughly enjoyed the video you included, which did honestly teach me a few things, that's in response to just one definition of a ghost. I'll have a go at it then.

I don't like to use the term ghost usually, because it's actual definition is "The spirit of a dead person, especially one believed to appear in bodily likeness to living persons or to haunt former habitats." I don't believe that disembodied dead people are walking around shaking furniture. If I were to be 100% sure of the existence of ghosts, I'd probably believe in a bit of a different approach.

So my personal proposition:
Some things in a single or multiple parallel universes/dimensions existing among us, and rarely we are able to see or interact with them. Seeing things like people or lights, things moving, all that would be the rare occasion that we can see and interact with things in another dimension. Assuming alternate dimensions or parallel universes exist.

Most accurate? I wouldn't quite say that. While I believe that would be what it is, there is of course the possibility of ghosts not existing. But I believe in this one because the actual idea has been brought up by respected persons before, does not involve dead people haunting old buildings, and makes more sense in my head than most other ghost theories.

[Sage]

I don't like to use the term ghost usually, because it's actual definition is "The spirit of a dead person, especially one believed to appear in bodily likeness to living persons or to haunt former habitats."
What is a spirit then?

Some things in a single or multiple parallel universes/dimensions existing among us, and rarely we are able to see or interact with them.
But what are these things and how do you know they exist? You're just attributing unexplainable cases to these "interdimensional" "things" and still fallaciously claiming that you can come to an explanation from a complete lack of explanation.

Most accurate? I wouldn't quite say that. While I believe that would be what it is, there is of course the possibility of ghosts not existing.
It's irrational to believe in things waiting to be disproven. That's not how, and I quote,

logic and shit

works. You shouldn't assume anything exists until there is good reason to.

But I believe in this one because the actual idea has been brought up by respected persons before
Fallacy: argument from authority.

does not involve dead people haunting old buildings,
Why do you draw the line there and not at "communication with interdimensional things"?

[Syvelocin]

What is a spirit then?

I don't believe in spirits.

But what are these things and how do you know they exist? You're just attributing unexplainable cases to these "interdimensional" "things" and still fallaciously claiming that you can come to an explanation from a complete lack of explanation.

People, creatures, fuck, I don't know. I don't know they exist. It's merely a theory. I don't rest my faith in this.

It's irrational to believe in things waiting to be disproven. That's not how, and I quote,

works. You shouldn't assume anything exists until there is good reason to.

Again, I don't believe in this. I don't agree or disagree, at this point, with the idea of the paranormal. The theory I gave was the only one that makes any sense to me, in some twisted way.

Fallacy: argument from authority.

It's not the sole reason I choose it. In my own logic however, I'm more likely to side with someone who has all their brain cells versus a random uneducated hick who can't explain their theory anyway, regardless of what it is.

Why do you draw the line there and not at "communication with interdimensional things"?

*sigh*

But as for dead beings sticking around and so on, no, they're dead.

[Sage]

People, creatures, fuck, I don't know. I don't know they exist. It's merely a theory. I don't rest my faith in this.

Again, I don't believe in this. I don't agree or disagree, at this point, with the idea of the paranormal. The theory I gave was the only one that makes any sense to me, in some twisted way.

Then what on earth are you even trying to argue?

[Syvelocin]

I don't really know at this point. I'm not much of an arguer
My stand on the topic was neither a believer nor a skeptic. I answered your questions there, as to what I would believe the paranormal to be for me. I shared my opinion.

[HeroesAndCons]

yes i do beleve in spirits i ahve seen odd things since i was like 2
at first i had no idea what it is but i now know what it is

[Sage]

I don't really know at this point. I'm not much of an arguer
You and half this thread and their mothers.


at first i had no idea what it is but i now know what it is
How do you know? Did you not read an entire page or two of arguing over the legitimacy (more over, lack there) of citing personal experiences as evidence?

It just blows my bloody mind. This is Ramblings of the Wise. This is a debate board. If you are just going to throw your opinion out there and not explain a damned thing you're trying to make a point of, then don't clog up threads and water down discussions with useless posts that nobody can challenge.

[insanity]

sage, you remeind me to much of my brother. You are almost impossible to win an argument against, but you refuse to give any other beliefs a chance.

okay maybe you are right maybe there is no such thing as a ghost, but why? why is it such an impossible idea that ghosts exist?

[Sage]

You are almost impossible to win an argument against
Such is the burden of being right. Deal with it.

you refuse to give any other beliefs a chance.
I've given the other side chances. I laid out a perfectly rational way in which they can explain exactly what they believe in, asked how they can be sure of the accuracy of these beliefs, and then set out to disprove their specific claims through factual evidence; such as correcting one poster's idea of what 'energy' is. If you just say "i had an experience, it's a ghost!" that tells me absolutely nothing of concrete substance and neither establishes your stance on the matter nor gives people anything to argue against. But hey, maybe I'm just being completely unreasonable in asking people to explain exactly what their beliefs are before I can debate them in the debate board.

okay maybe you are right maybe there is no such thing as a ghost
That's not what I'm arguing. I'm asking for people to explain to me what they believe a "ghost" is, and making the point that their claims have yet to be proven by any reliable evidence. Personal experiences are not reliable evidence because the only person that can attest to them is the person that experienced them, and they are prone to having had a momentary lapse in judgment, being ignorant and mistaking natural, explainable phenomena of the physical or mental sort as paranormal, or leaving out crucial details of the experience intentionally or unconsciously.

[insanity]

if you remembered back to the first post it said: 'I'd love to hear everyone's opinions'
so by posting here everyone is just sharing there opinions.
what answer do you expect this debate to come to? yes sage is right, he obviously knows everything?
since its impossible to know if ghosts are real or not and its just everyones beliefs, it kindof makes it hard to debate as there is no right answer, no matter what you say you can change no ones beliefs. So whats the point in arguing... I reakon ghosts are real, and there is not actually any thing you can do about it. You think all your scientific logical evidence is correct... so what, its your opinion.
I dont actually see what is being debated here....

[Sage]

if you remembered back to the first post it said: 'I'd love to hear everyone's opinions'
It's the debate board. If you post your opinion, it's going to be debated.

so by posting here everyone is just sharing there opinions.
Yes, they're sharing they're opinions in the debate board and feeling personally attacked because someone is actually trying to debate them.

what answer do you expect this debate to come to?
I expect people to not believe in claims that have shoddy evidence. Yes, I'm such a terrible person.

since its impossible to know if ghosts are real or not and its just everyones beliefs,
You can know whether ghosts are real or not: The first step is just defining what one is, which only one person has done, and that person's definition was dismissable because they misunderstood what 'energy' is.

I can "believe" the sky is green, and I would be entitled to that belief, but it's a specific claim on the nature of reality- By examining this claim, one can clearly see that the sky is not green (generally speaking, anyway, I won't bring auroras into this.)

The only "reason" you think no one can prove or disprove the existence of ghosts is because nobody is willing to give a concrete definition of what a ghost even is.

no matter what you say you can change no ones beliefs.
This only applies to the closed-minded and willfully ignorant. I would believe in ghosts if someone explained what one is and empirical evidence of their existence that could be tested.

So whats the point in arguing...
For the umpteenth time, this is a fucking debate board.

I reakon ghosts are real, and there is not actually any thing you can do about it.
Evidently.

You think all your scientific logical evidence is correct... so what, its your opinion.
By this logic, everything is just an opinion, and all opinions are thus equally valid to the person holding them, and by this logic you should just drop out of school because your beliefs tell you enough about the world because it's all just opinions.


I dont actually see what is being debated here....

I don't either, considering people would rather just be butthurt and use middle-school logic claiming everything is "just an opinion" than actually explain what they think ghosts are.

[insanity]

well yes, this is a debate thread, right. I dont think anyones feeling attacked, if they were they could just stop posting.
nobody has shown any good evidence yet, its not like you have any scientific proof that ghosts dont exist. So at them moment any evidence is evidence until someony can actually come up with soom decent evidence that can be proven by science.

okay since it seems be bothering you so much I will find a definition of a ghost. I admit as you said my last definition didnt count, but that was only my current idea, but you obviously proved that wrong. I still think ghosts exist I have just had to edit my veiws so they make sense again. At the moment the best definition for a ghost I have is:

a ghost is a human (sometimes animal) figure, which cannot be physically present. The figure can be anyhting from a clear human shape to a fuzzy glow. A ghost isnt actually in our world but is caused by the overlap of our world and the astral planes. Spirits ghosts or anything else you want to call them are part of the astral, but sometimes where worlds overlap, they become visable.

is that any better of a definition^ The reason why no concrete definition is avalible is because the word 'ghost' has been usen to explain anything from carrtoon things under white sheets to the things in paranormal activity. So I can understand why you need a better definition of the ghost we are talking of. when I say the word ghost, to me it means anything supernatural from the astral worlds, which makes it hard to give a proper definition, because my veiws are always changing.

But I still dont see whats the impossible bit about ghosts existing, right no one has came up with a decent theory yet, but you havnt came up with anything explaining why it is impossible for them to exist apart from explaining why other peoples ideas are inncorrect.

and yes you are correct, I would drop out of school but I cant untill im 16. so I still have 2 more years stuck in school. But thanks for that opinion, I shall use that to try and explain to my teacher that im wasting my time in school.

[Amnesiac]

well yes, this is a debate thread, right. I dont think anyones feeling attacked, if they were they could just stop posting.
nobody has shown any good evidence yet, its not like you have any scientific proof that ghosts dont exist. So at them moment any evidence is evidence until someony can actually come up with soom decent evidence that can be proven by science.

The burden of proof lies on the one who came up with the idea. You don't go up to someone, say "I have $10 in my pocket," have them ask you "oh yeah? Show me." and then say "LOLOLOL PROVE I DON'T!"

If you're going to suggest ghosts exist, you have to provide your own evidence supporting that theory. It's not our job to prove something you came up with. Based on current scientific evidence, there is nothing that concretely supports the existence of supernatural beings. The burden of proof is on you. You have to show us the proof that ghosts exist, we don't have to show you they don't.

[Sage]

I'm going to repeat the things I've already addressed multiple times in this thread because you clearly still aren't getting the point of anything I'm saying.


nobody has shown any good evidence yet, its not like you have any scientific proof that ghosts dont exist.
Okay. Let me spell this out as I already have far too many times: There's this thing in logic called the burden of evidence! It's this funny thing that states, y'know, you can't just believe in something and wait for it to be disproven. It is up to the person making a positive claim, ("x exists" or "i believe x exists") to present evidence to support that claim. It is not up to me to prove or disprove anything here, because I'm not making any claim. You say ghosts exist: I'm asking you to prove it sufficiently. You have not done so yet, and because it hasn't been proven, there is no reason to believe it.

So at them moment any evidence is evidence until someony can actually come up with soom decent evidence that can be proven by science.
Not all evidence is reliable. In a debate setting, first-hand accounts, personal experiences, and here-say are all worthless for multiple reasons:

Personal experiences are not reliable evidence because the only person that can attest to them is the person that experienced them, and they are prone to having had a momentary lapse in judgment, being ignorant and mistaking natural, explainable phenomena of the physical or mental sort as paranormal, or leaving out crucial details of the experience intentionally or unconsciously.

okay since it seems be bothering you so much I will find a definition of a ghost. I admit as you said my last definition didnt count, but that was only my current idea, but you obviously proved that wrong. I still think ghosts exist I have just had to edit my veiws so they make sense again.
Uh, no, that's not how logic works. You don't reach a conclusion right away and search for evidence to support it: You examine facts and draw a conclusion from those. Now you've inadvertently admitted that you're just making this all up as you go.


At the moment the best definition for a ghost I have is:

a ghost is a human (sometimes animal) figure, which cannot be physically present. The figure can be anyhting from a clear human shape to a fuzzy glow. A ghost isnt actually in our world but is caused by the overlap of our world and the astral planes. Spirits ghosts or anything else you want to call them are part of the astral, but sometimes where worlds overlap, they become visable.
What are the 'astral planes'? How do you know those exist? Why do ghosts form? Why do they glow?

is that any better of a definition^
No, because now you've just raised more things that need to be clarified, and given yourself more magical excuses to come up with.

But I still dont see whats the impossible bit about ghosts existing,
Not at any single point in this thread have I ever said that the existence of ghosts is impossible. I am arguing that based on the definitions of believers, there has been insufficient and/or unreliable evidence. The only times I have ever said it is impossible is if a ghost is defined as something factually incorrect: For example, it is impossible for a ghost to be the 'energy' of a corpse, because through physics we have a good understanding of what 'energy' is and that definition of ghost misuses the word to describe something it is not.

right no one has came up with a decent theory yet, but you havnt came up with anything explaining why it is impossible for them to exist apart from explaining why other peoples ideas are inncorrect.
Burden of evidence. Deal with it.

[insanity]

okay good point you dont need to prove ghosts exist. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Has_it_been_scientifically_proven_that_ghosts_exist
^ that explains the evidence at the moment, basically there is none that the moment but
'the serious investigation of Paranormal activity is now being pursued by many top Universities and Colleges, using scientific methodology and equipment.' this shows that all the ideas of ghosts arnt complete gobble dee goop, because people are bothering to do scientific testing, but as it said there is no evidence at the moment, I repet there is no proper evidence. I could say all thoose photos and ghost storys are evidence but I cant prove that they are real, some of them I doubt are real. so Im sorry no evidence.
But sometimes you dont need evidence to believe in something. I think its called faith, you know its just what people believe.

not exactly, what I said to begin with is that I believe in ghosts, but I never claimed to have the knowledge to explain exactly what they are. I am sure of some sort of supernatural existness, and have some theorys to what that is and what causes it but nothing is set in concrete. So as you are proving old theorys wrong, I am discovering better ideas that explain things better, so thank you for helping me devalop my spiritual veiws with your knowledge of logic.

the astral planes? we arnt discussing them, if you want to find out more, someone invented something called google, I am sure you can find a lot of well explained logical definitions to what astral planes are. And again I am just saying that I think ghosts are real, but i am not a ghost expert I cant explain the metephysical reasons that explain formations of astral energy, I havnt claimed to know anything like that.

[Sage]

But sometimes you dont need evidence to believe in something.
Yes you do. Game over. Thanks for playing.

[insanity]

yawn... I disagree with that ^ but then thats just my mind.... maybe im just one dillusional kid, but im fine with that.... so thats what I believe that ghosts are real in all my strange ways, even if you cant agree cause you have no logic to back it up. but yes you are welcome I enjoyed playing.

[Sage]

you have no logic to back it up.

Uhhhh.......... Did you just completely forget every single thing I've posted in this thread?

People want to believe those things exist, which is why believers will often cite unexplained phenomena as positive evidence when the two are not one in the same.

I still insist that people who want to believe will take any personal account, story, or odd occurrence as confirmation of their beliefs that were never fully explained or justified to begin with. A number of posters in this thread are proving my point rather efficiently.

You can't claim you believe in ghosts before explaining exactly what a ghost is. You then have to justify your definition of ghost and explain how you know your definition of one is accurate. You would then have to defend your definition of a ghost from other believers accounts of the supernatural that may conflict with yours. You would then have to provide a way for people who want to observe a ghost to do so under conditions that can be replicated- and no, claiming that any failure to make contact with a ghost comes from a skeptic's insincerity is not an acceptable or sophisticated defense of your belief.

I am really not impressed with a lot of you right now.

I generally agree with you but I'll have to make a few amendments due to your word choice. First, you've defined a ghost as an 'imprint of a soul left after death', and while you are entitled to do so, there's no way of arguing that definition as any more accurate and legitimate than any other.

Second, while your explanation of consciousness is correct, that in itself does not in any way debunk the possibility of "souls" existing- and just because I'm sure a believer will want to quote me on that and take my words out of context, I'll also advise not to be too excited. The following summarizes my position on this:

While the existence of anything can never be entirely confirmed or denied, you should always assume it does not until given good reason to think it does.

That's the only rational way you can go about analyzing the paranormal or any part of reality. You cannot take a single occurrence for which you have no explanation and assume, consequently, that the lack of a scientific explanation is evidence of a supernatural one. Lack of explanation means lack of explanation. I can't stress this enough or put it any more simply.

Throughout all of human history we have attributed countless phenomena to supernatural or divine explanations, and all throughout this debate, I've seen believers do that. Whatever their "experiences" are (which have conveniently been left vague, but I digress), they can be scientifically tested under controlled conditions. Every single thing we have ever explained through spirits and ghosts in the past can be explained by perfectly natural causes today- not a single thing ever claimed to be supernatural and tested has ended up confirming the existence of any paranormal activity or phenomenon.

Believers believe because they want to. Possessive children will hold their blankets and bottles closely and only let go when they themselves are ready to do so.

I made it perfectly clear how they can justify their beliefs. All they need to do is:

1) Define what a 'ghost' is.
2) Explain why their definition of a 'ghost' is the most accurate definition.
3) Explain how they came to this knowledge.

That's it. Why has no one done this? Is it so absurd to think that, oh, I don't know... they have no answers? Every single time someone dares to apply critical thinking and rationality to this subject, they're met with nothing but wives tales and cryptic warnings and hints of some long lost, unfathomable dark knowledge. Give me a damned break.

There. If any believers want to make headway in this debate, I've dumbed my argument down to just three questions. I even numbered them. Now can I get some bloody answers, or am I not cool enough to be enlightened in the spoOooOooky realm of knowledge?

Almost everything in it has already been covered in the handful of posts I've made in this thread that most people have little interest in responding to.

You can't take an unexplained experience and claim it is evidence of a specific claim: ie, the existence of ghosts. You can't claim to know what it is simply because you don't know what it is. That's nonsensical.

Such is the burden of being right. Deal with it.

I've given the other side chances. I laid out a perfectly rational way in which they can explain exactly what they believe in, asked how they can be sure of the accuracy of these beliefs, and then set out to disprove their specific claims through factual evidence; such as correcting one poster's idea of what 'energy' is. If you just say "i had an experience, it's a ghost!" that tells me absolutely nothing of concrete substance and neither establishes your stance on the matter nor gives people anything to argue against. But hey, maybe I'm just being completely unreasonable in asking people to explain exactly what their beliefs are before I can debate them in the debate board.

That's not what I'm arguing. I'm asking for people to explain to me what they believe a "ghost" is, and making the point that their claims have yet to be proven by any reliable evidence. Personal experiences are not reliable evidence because the only person that can attest to them is the person that experienced them, and they are prone to having had a momentary lapse in judgment, being ignorant and mistaking natural, explainable phenomena of the physical or mental sort as paranormal, or leaving out crucial details of the experience intentionally or unconsciously.

It's the debate board. If you post your opinion, it's going to be debated.

Yes, they're sharing they're opinions in the debate board and feeling personally attacked because someone is actually trying to debate them.

I expect people to not believe in claims that have shoddy evidence. Yes, I'm such a terrible person.

You can know whether ghosts are real or not: The first step is just defining what one is, which only one person has done, and that person's definition was dismissable because they misunderstood what 'energy' is.

I can "believe" the sky is green, and I would be entitled to that belief, but it's a specific claim on the nature of reality- By examining this claim, one can clearly see that the sky is not green (generally speaking, anyway, I won't bring auroras into this.)

The only "reason" you think no one can prove or disprove the existence of ghosts is because nobody is willing to give a concrete definition of what a ghost even is.

This only applies to the closed-minded and willfully ignorant. I would believe in ghosts if someone explained what one is and empirical evidence of their existence that could be tested.

For the umpteenth time, this is a fucking debate board.

Evidently.

By this logic, everything is just an opinion, and all opinions are thus equally valid to the person holding them, and by this logic you should just drop out of school because your beliefs tell you enough about the world because it's all just opinions.

I don't either, considering people would rather just be butthurt and use middle-school logic claiming everything is "just an opinion" than actually explain what they think ghosts are.

I'm going to repeat the things I've already addressed multiple times in this thread because you clearly still aren't getting the point of anything I'm saying.

Okay. Let me spell this out as I already have far too many times: There's this thing in logic called the burden of evidence! It's this funny thing that states, y'know, you can't just believe in something and wait for it to be disproven. It is up to the person making a positive claim, ("x exists" or "i believe x exists") to present evidence to support that claim. It is not up to me to prove or disprove anything here, because I'm not making any claim. You say ghosts exist: I'm asking you to prove it sufficiently. You have not done so yet, and because it hasn't been proven, there is no reason to believe it.

Not all evidence is reliable. In a debate setting, first-hand accounts, personal experiences, and here-say are all worthless for multiple reasons:

Uh, no, that's not how logic works. You don't reach a conclusion right away and search for evidence to support it: You examine facts and draw a conclusion from those. Now you've inadvertently admitted that you're just making this all up as you go.

What are the 'astral planes'? How do you know those exist? Why do ghosts form? Why do they glow?

No, because now you've just raised more things that need to be clarified, and given yourself more magical excuses to come up with.

Not at any single point in this thread have I ever said that the existence of ghosts is impossible. I am arguing that based on the definitions of believers, there has been insufficient and/or unreliable evidence. The only times I have ever said it is impossible is if a ghost is defined as something factually incorrect: For example, it is impossible for a ghost to be the 'energy' of a corpse, because through physics we have a good understanding of what 'energy' is and that definition of ghost misuses the word to describe something it is not.

Burden of evidence. Deal with it.

[insanity]

obviously I did (: that was alot to remember... I didnt just re read any of that btw, so you kindof wasted your time reposting it (:

[Sage]

You're really not doing yourself any favors by continuing to argue after it's been clearly established that you are just making things up to justify claims as you go and that you are completely aware of the lack of any evidence to back up your claims at this time.

I didnt just re read any of that btw, so you kindof wasted your time reposting it (:
I don't think you'd come out with any clearer understanding of what I'm saying if you reread it three times.


'the serious investigation of Paranormal activity is now being pursued by many top Universities and Colleges, using scientific methodology and equipment.' this shows that all the ideas of ghosts arnt complete gobble dee goop, because people are bothering to do scientific testing,
Being tested doesn't mean the claim has any legitimacy. It just means it's being tested. That's it. Until any evidence is found supporting any paranormal claims, all of that is still unproven and the stuff of fantasy and legends.


But sometimes you dont need evidence to believe in something. I think its called faith, you know its just what people believe.
If you're just going to have faith in something, then what is the point of entering a debate setting at all? Why? Why bother? Why express an opinion that is going to be debated if you yourself have nothing to back it up with? Why respond to criticism of your unproven, vague claims if you were caught red-handed making it up as you go?

not exactly, what I said to begin with is that I believe in ghosts, but I never claimed to have the knowledge to explain exactly what they are.
How do you believe in something if you don't even know what you believe in?! That's like me saying I believe in... xorbokos! I can't explain what they are, well, sorta, they're part of this alternate dimension, that I can't explain either, and it doesn't make sense, but I believe in them!

Do you not see how absurd and asinine that sounds?

I am sure of some sort of supernatural existness, and have some theorys to what that is and what causes it but nothing is set in concrete.
Well, shit, I love story time. Would you care to elaborate or is that just going to be another addition to a long list of vague mentionings in this thread that don't get explained or analyzed in any way whatsoever?

So as you are proving old theorys wrong, I am discovering better ideas that explain things better, so thank you for helping me devalop my spiritual veiws with your knowledge of logic.
IF ONLY ONE SINGLE THING I SAY GETS THROUGH YOUR HEAD I HOPE TO EVERY GOD KNOWN TO MAN THAT IT IS THIS:
When something you believe is proven wrong, YOU DON'T MAKE UP NEW EXCUSES TO JUSTIFY IT. If a belief is WRONG, you GET RID OF THE BELIEF.

How can I make that any more clear? How can I simplify this more? How many times do I have to stand on a bloody soap box before you people will give some credibility to the idea that: Oh, hey, maybe it is stupid to believe in things that haven't been proven! Maybe it is stupid to adamantly defend a belief in a thing that you can't even explain or understand yourself in any way! Maybe I'm just a bloody twit for thinking that some sense can be knocked into people!

the astral planes? we arnt discussing them,
Uh, yes, we are! I asked you to define what a ghost is because it is unclear to many people here just what that word refers to. Now, to explain one unexplained claim, you incorporate another unexplained claim!

Fuck, Sage, what are xorbokos? Well, I'll tell you! They exist in the eleventeenth dimension.

if you want to find out more, someone invented something called google,
http://marymo.net/mm_blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/headdesk.jpg

I am sure you can find a lot of well explained logical definitions to what astral planes are.
You know what? Fine. I'll play your game. Let's see what an astral plane is. I'll be sure to include my sources.

The astral plane, also called the astral world, is a plane of existence postulated by classical (particularly neo-Platonic), medieval, oriental and esoteric philosophies and mystery religions
Wikipedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astral_plane)
Upon scanning the article I was unable to locate any credible scientific inquiry confirming the existence of this realm.

A plane parallel to the physical world, traveled through by the astral body during projection.
http://www.reiki.nu/treatment/healing/dictionary/dictionary.html
I looked through this site and the entire thing is founded upon the principle that there is some sort of 'life energy' that flows through everything and is what causes us to be alive and in motion. This initial claim is not scientifically proven and without it the entire rest of the site is thus invalid.

The second plane of creation. Its medium is concrete emotional energy. It is where our consciousness is focused between lifetimes and when we're finished with the physical plane.
www.michaelteachings.com/glossary.html
This invokes even more things that have not been proven or demonstrated. Emotions are controlled by the brain. Your brain is an organ. Once you die, it is dead. Any form of consciousness outside our brains at this time cannot be proven.

known as the Grand Astral Plane, or Anda, this refers to the division of the Great Continuum of Consciousness above the Human Personality, or Metaconscious mind. It consists of four major parts, the Subtle Realm, the Planetary Realm, the Transplanetary Realm, and the Cosmic Sphere.
http://www.mudrashram.com/glossarypage.html
Do I really need to go on?

And again I am just saying that I think ghosts are real, but i am not a ghost expert I cant explain the metephysical reasons that explain formations of astral energy, I havnt claimed to know anything like that.
How does one become a ghost expert? How does one distinguish a legitimate ghost expert from a fraud? Do all ghost experts agree on anything? If they don't, why is that?

[deadpie]

1. {CLAIMS} of a {SUPERNTURAL} events are not {ACTUAL}
2. {CLAIMS} of {SUPERNATURAL} events are not {EVIDENCE}
3. {CLAIMS} of witnesses of {SUPERNATURAL} events are not {ACTUAL} and therefore are not {EVIDENCE.}
4. Because {CLAIMS} of witnesses of {SUPERNATURAL} events are not {ACTUAL} and therefore are not {EVIDENCE,} then {CLAIMS} of witnesses of the {SUPERNATURAL} are not interchangeable with {ACTUAL} {EVIDENCE} of {SUPERNATURAL} events.

Ghosts are Supernatural, thus being bullshit.

[insanity]

I still dont get what you are trying to say here, all you do is keep repeting: you have no eviedence, you dont have a definition to what a ghost is, you dont know what you are talking about.

You keep saying that it cant be true unless there is evidence, and you cant belief in something when you arent clear what it is, or there is no evedence. Well I belief without eviedence or being sure what it is, all around the world hundreds of people believe in ghosts, for hundreds of years people have believed in ghosts. there was a poll on VT about if people believed in ghosts and more people did then didnt(http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=530)
so it just shows that lots of people believe things without evedience.

back in 2007 there was a thread on VT about ghosts, http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=14499
you were supporting the argument that ghosts were real you even said:
'It's stupid not to believe in something a human made up without evidence against it.' and that completely contradicts what you are saying now... exactly I agree with you back then it is stupid ^... and you said it your self.

And yes I have given you a definition, I will give you two more ones that also make sense and say things along the same lines:
-A disemboided spirit of a dead person, a faint trace left behind
-non physical part of a person believed to live on after death

And yes, I know I keep changing my veiws I already explain how that worked before. I believe in some form of spirit (ghost), some details I am unsure about, so I change them as I learn more. I see nothing wrong with my current ideas, so if there is something that doesnt fit the logical way of life please correct me. It not stupid idea to change theorys, its called being open mindind to accept some things are wrong, but that doesnt change my main belief.

yes I believe that you found out what the astral planes are, congradulations.
I have realised you cant find 'proof' but then it makes sense there is no problems with it, it seems right to me. It is a theory, but it makes sense.
Yeah life energy, prana, whatever else you want to call it, you are on the right track that exists to...

Emotions. you said you didnt want to bring auras into this, but memorys are stored in your aura, all your experiences impact the health of your aura, yor aura is a mirror of your emotions, your aura is a feild of energy surrounding you... the energy is refleting your emotions.... where does all this energy that is memory filled and a record of emotions go to exactly, it isnt solid so it doesnt get buryed, its the bit that leaves you when you die... have you heard of your soul? well all this stuff has to go somewhere. so therefore not all your emotions are in your brain, so they dont disapear and rot eith your body. And yes carry on going if you have any more problems with the existance of the astral....

so im still not to sure what you are saying...

[Sage]

I still dont get what you are trying to say here, all you do is keep repeting: you have no eviedence, you dont have a definition to what a ghost is, you dont know what you are talking about.
I keep saying this because it seems to in one ear and out the other.

You keep saying that it cant be true unless there is evidence, and you cant belief in something when you arent clear what it is, or there is no evedence. Well I belief without eviedence or being sure what it is,
That's right. And so long as you pick and choose what you believe is real without critically thinking, you'll remain a fool. Why does it mean so much to you? What if it suddenly dawned on you that nothing paranormal exists? Is it so dreadful that that is where the lack of evidence points?

all around the world hundreds of people believe in ghosts, for hundreds of years people have believed in ghosts. there was a poll on VT about if people believed in ghosts and more people did then didnt(http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=530)
The entire world believed for thousands of years that the sun revolves around the earth. It is irrelevant how many people believe something: Consensus has no weight on whether something is true or not.

so it just shows that lots of people believe things without evedience.
That's the problem.

back in 2007 there was a thread on VT about ghosts, http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=14499
you were supporting the argument that ghosts were real you even said:
'It's stupid not to believe in something a human made up without evidence against it.' and that completely contradicts what you are saying now... exactly I agree with you back then it is stupid ^... and you said it your self.
You're right. I did say that myself.

Four years ago.

This, girl, is what we call "scraping the bottom of the barrel."

And yes I have given you a definition, I will give you two more ones that also make sense and say things along the same lines:
-A disemboided spirit of a dead person, a faint trace left behind
-non physical part of a person believed to live on after death
You've missed my point once again that you can't pick a conclusion and look for evidence to support it.

I see nothing wrong with my current ideas, so if there is something that doesnt fit the logical way of life please correct me.
That's what I've been doing for nearly two pages now.

It not stupid idea to change theorys, its called being open mindind to accept some things are wrong, but that doesnt change my main belief.
If you're going to be "open-minded" to any idea with no filter to sort out which are plausible and which are not (evidence) then you're just believing in whatever version of reality you find most entertaining. If you don't need evidence to verify your ideas, there is no way you will ever accept anything contradictory as correct, and consequently no matter how open-minded you think you're being, the heart of your message is the epitome of closed-mindedness.

yes I believe that you found out what the astral planes are, congradulations.
No. No, I haven't. Every definition was different and unproven. My point was that you can throw around all the mystical buzz-words you like, but that doesn't mean any of them mean anything.


Yeah life energy, prana, whatever else you want to call it, you are on the right track that exists to...
No. Until there is evidence to prove any of that exists as well, it is safe to say it doesn't.

Emotions. you said you didnt want to bring auras into this,
What is an aura?

but memorys are stored in your aura,
How do you know?

all your experiences impact the health of your aura,
How do you know?

yor aura is a mirror of your emotions,
How do you know?

your aura is a feild of energy surrounding you...
How do you know?

the energy is refleting your emotions....
How do you know?

where does all this energy that is memory filled and a record of emotions go to exactly,
How do you know?

it isnt solid so it doesnt get buryed, its the bit that leaves you when you die...
How do you know?

have you heard of your soul?
Yes. I have. No one has proven those exist either.

well all this stuff has to go somewhere.
Why?

so therefore not all your emotions are in your brain,
Evidence and knowledge of the human brain suggests otherwise.

And yes carry on going if you have any more problems with the existance of the astral....
Yes, I do have a problem with it. It hasn't been proven.

so im still not to sure what you are saying...
No shit.

[Cosmic]

I still dont get what you are trying to say here, all you do is keep repeting: you have no eviedence, you dont have a definition to what a ghost is, you dont know what you are talking about.

You keep saying that it cant be true unless there is evidence, and you cant belief in something when you arent clear what it is, or there is no evedence. Well I belief without eviedence or being sure what it is, all around the world hundreds of people believe in ghosts, for hundreds of years people have believed in ghosts. there was a poll on VT about if people believed in ghosts and more people did then didnt(http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=530)
so it just shows that lots of people believe things without evedience.

I will agree with you; it is perfectly possible to believe in something without evidence, as indeed evidenced (perhaps ironically) by your beliefs, and indeed those of millions of others. What is the case, and what should be the case, however, have the potential to be very different.

back in 2007 there was a thread on VT about ghosts, http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=14499
you were supporting the argument that ghosts were real you even said:
'It's stupid not to believe in something a human made up without evidence against it.' and that completely contradicts what you are saying now... exactly I agree with you back then it is stupid ^... and you said it your self.

Firstly, people's opinions are bound to change over time, particularly at this sort of age where learning is a very significant fixture in one's life and where you are in a constant state of learning new, and often contradictory things. Thus, I don't think it's fair to pull up someone's inconsistencies in thought over 4 years ago, when they were much younger and probably more easily influenced.

I want to question the premise of your argument that it's "stupid not to believe what a human made up". Why is it stupid? Humans are imperfect, they make mistakes, they misinterpret, and they have a habit of clutching at straws in an attempt to explain things that they don't understand.

So I ask, why does it make more sense to blindly agree, than to question and scrutinise the belief? By blindly agreeing, you are taking the risk of being wrong. By Scrutinising the belief, you are attempting to eliminate that risk.

And yes I have given you a definition, I will give you two more ones that also make sense and say things along the same lines:
-A disemboided spirit of a dead person, a faint trace left behind
-non physical part of a person believed to live on after death

Surely the inconsistencies, and the vast array of potential definitions, is testament itself to the fact that these experiences of ghosts are left largely up to the individual's interpretations, which are inevitably reductionist a lot of the time?

And yes, I know I keep changing my veiws I already explain how that worked before. I believe in some form of spirit (ghost), some details I am unsure about, so I change them as I learn more. I see nothing wrong with my current ideas, so if there is something that doesnt fit the logical way of life please correct me. It not stupid idea to change theorys, its called being open mindind to accept some things are wrong, but that doesnt change my main belief.

It's perfectly okay to change your ideas and be influenced by good argumentation (we're assuming "good" to mean substantive, both in substance and technique)... But I'm wondering why ghosts are the accepted explanation, when it could be a whole host of other things, from lighting tricks, hallucinations and other circumstances. I'm not dismissing the potential for this kind of afterlife, but I am suggesting that any arguments I've heard thus far demonstrate one-tracked reductionism at it's worst, because no consideration to other potential causes has been investigated.

yes I believe that you found out what the astral planes are, congradulations.
I have realised you cant find 'proof' but then it makes sense there is no problems with it, it seems right to me. It is a theory, but it makes sense.
Yeah life energy, prana, whatever else you want to call it, you are on the right track that exists to...

I think, if I may, that this is an example of humans trying to explain things in ways they understand, by turning them into physical existences with an identity, but without any means of verifying this identity. The "energy" of human interaction, and the complexity of the self are inevitably hard to break down, explain and describe satisfactorily, so by giving them an identity via "astral planes" and "life energy", we are able to better imagine what these things are.

Again, that is not to say that your theory is wrong... merely, that it is not yet proven right.

Emotions. you said you didnt want to bring auras into this, but memorys are stored in your aura, all your experiences impact the health of your aura, yor aura is a mirror of your emotions, your aura is a feild of energy surrounding you... the energy is refleting your emotions.... where does all this energy that is memory filled and a record of emotions go to exactly, it isnt solid so it doesnt get buryed, its the bit that leaves you when you die... have you heard of your soul? well all this stuff has to go somewhere. so therefore not all your emotions are in your brain, so they dont disapear and rot eith your body. And yes carry on going if you have any more problems with the existance of the astral....

so im still not to sure what you are saying...

I didn't fully understand this last bit, but does it not rest on the premise of an aura even existing? Again, this sounds more like giving a name to that which is hard to identify through language alone... however there is no evidence (certainly empirically so) to validate your claims.

It is important to be sceptical of that which is not yet established, lest you find yourself potentially relying on something non-existent.

[embers]

Emotions. you said you didnt want to bring auras into this ... [rest of B.S.]

He never mentioned 'auras'. This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_(astronomy)) is what Sage was referring to.


Sage, come this stage in the argument I really wonder why you still bother.

[Sage]

Sage, come this stage in the argument I really wonder why you still bother.
The likelihood that I will change the opinion of the person I am actually debating is slim. I'm driving this point in case anyone reading this thread should be on the fence of the issue.

[embers]

The likelihood that I will change the opinion of the person I am actually debating is slim. I'm driving this point in case anyone reading this thread should be on the fence of the issue.

Considering your point's been vigorously driven for the last 3 pages, I'd say nobody should be on the fence anymore :L

[Sage]

Considering your point's been vigorously driven for the last 3 pages, I'd say nobody should be on the fence anymore :L

Anyone else is more than welcomed, even encouraged, to come forward with whatever they consider evidence of the supernatural.

[Cosmic]

Anyone else is more than welcomed, even encouraged, to come forward with whatever they consider evidence of the supernatural.

Not to be rude, because I appreciate what you've been saying in this thread... but the question is not whether they're welcomed, but whether they want to, when your style of argumentation is, often, abrasive.

[Sugaree]

Not to be rude, because I appreciate what you've been saying in this thread... but the question is not whether they're welcomed, but whether they want to, when your style of argumentation is, often, abrasive.

It's not as much abrasive as it is straight forward and honest. Though I don't agree with what Tim has said, he's easily won this debate so far from how I see it.

[insanity]

blerg never mind, I believe they exist, but if you wany to say you won then go ahead (: I still think its certain they exist no matter what you say >.< but lol I suck at debating my brother always tells me that, and you are to much like him, so yeah you won awhile back (: but they still exist same with auras and astral planes and all the other stuff.. even if you choose not to believe (:
but yeah you are pro at debating sage XD

[Fushigi]

im not scared about ghost im scared about people around me... because definitely some of them can bring harm to me :D

[insanity]

ha agreed... people are scary, at least some of them lol >.<

[Fushigi]

ha agreed... people are scary, at least some of them lol >.<

hahaha right!!! but i have seen some ghost at my house or even at my school :D

[Sage]

hahaha right!!! but i have seen some ghost at my house or even at my school :D

You probably haven't.

[Fushigi]

You probably haven't.



i have really!!! but it was like back in 2003? it was a bride like lady... floating and has no face!! i almost break our door that time lol!! but still im more scared to ppl :D

[insanity]

psht if he thinks he saw it then he probly did :p unless he is lying... but why not?

[Fushigi]

well my place used to be graveyard for japanese soldiers :P

[insanity]

cool (: I have an obbsecion with grave yards they are the best places, my grandad used to be one of them people that dug graves XD

[Fushigi]

cool!!! did u know that some of the beggars here at my country are residing at a cemetery?

[insanity]

fun place to sleep, as long as they dont dammage any of the graves...

[Fushigi]

yeap!!! but still disturbing to sleep at the place where u know many ppl placed 6 feet under LOL

[insanity]

neh not really, there is nothing do be afraid of, its like the worms food court (:

[Fushigi]

hahahaha!!!!! and another trivia!! did u know that some of the jewelries worn by the dead are taken by the greedy thief? they dig the dead person and take the valuable things :D

[insanity]

thats creepy... I have to say that... even if im okay with the whole cemetry dead person thingg I still wouldnt want to dig someone up >.< lol would you do that if you were desprete?

[Fushigi]

hahahaha desperate on what first? :P

[Scooby Dooby Drew]

Oh look, what was once a debate thread has turned into a chat session between two devout believers in the occult

How fantastic~
*totally not being sarcastic at all*

[Fushigi]

Oh look, what was once a debate thread has turned into a chat session between two devout believers in the occult

How fantastic~
*totally not being sarcastic at all*

lol its not what u think :P

[insanity]

hahaha desprete for money or something? im a devout believer of the occult? wow that is fantastic (:

[Fushigi]

hahaha!! no! i will respect the dead hahaha i think ill just rob the bank near me :D lol

[insanity]

yeah good idea (: lol go in with a bandana over your face and go all ninja on the bank tillers (:

[Fushigi]

maybe we should go together then?!? hahaha

[insanity]

yeah good idea, we shall fellow bankrobber (: we can be ninjas together

[Fushigi]

hahaha
LOL we should talk about ghost again... have u seen a ghost? :P

[insanity]

yup once I did >.< it scared me heeaps but lolo yeah... daamn hmk time... talk to you later? (:

[Fushigi]

okies.... beware the ghost is right there waiting for u... :D

[Kahn]

If you have absolutely nothing to contribute to a discussion in Ramblings of the Wise, please don't bother posting. This is your first and final warning. Take the conversation to VM or PM. If it doesn't stop, the thread will be locked.

[embers]

Oh wow. The two lads having a conversation on the ghosts they had seen just completely disregarded Sage's three page ramble.

[The Joker]

This thread is full of such a fiery combination of win and fail I shit my pants with joy.

[charlotte945]

Real as me and you, thats what i beleve. I mean come on why not. I think there are sperits out there who make things happen.

[Amnesiac]

Real as me and you, thats what i beleve. I mean come on why not. I think there are sperits out there who make things happen.

Congratulations, you've just summarized the opinions of 90% of the people in this thread.

[embers]

Congratulations, you've just summarized the opinions of 90% of the people in this thread.

And completely overlooked the entire discussion that ensued...

[Sage]

I mean come on why not.

This mindset of yours is everything that is wrong with this forum.

[Bluesman]

This mindset of yours is everything that is wrong with this forum.

Agreed... I created this as a forum to debate whether or not ghost could exist... not as a random trolling thread...

[Amnesiac]

Agreed... I created this as a forum to debate whether or not ghost could exist... not as a random trolling thread...

This isn't a trolling thread as much as it is a showcase of a large number of members' inability to debate properly.

[Sage]

I created this as a forum to debate whether or not ghost could exist...

That isn't possible if nobody can or is willing to define what one is.

[embers]

That isn't possible if nobody can or is willing to define what one is.

Come to think of it, surely there is a common, or 'official', definition? I mean, say a scientist wanted to prove whether or not 'ghosts' exist, he'd use some set definition of the word ghost that is commonly accepted by other people of the same profession.

In traditional belief, a ghost is the soul or spirit of a deceased person or animal that can appear, in visible form or other manifestation, to the living.

And then of course, you'd ask for the definition of the words soul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul) and spirit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit).

Why should those definitions be contested?

[Bluesman]

That isn't possible if nobody can or is willing to define what one is.

"The soul of a dead person, a disembodied spirit imagined, usually as a vague, shadowy or evanescent form, as wandering among or haunting living persons."

Straight from dictionary.com. I have to admit though, I think a lot of what we call "ghosts" would not fit into that definition...

[Amnesiac]

A few weeks ago, I thought I saw a man standing behind a door in my house. Needless to say, I flipped my shit. But then I went for a closer look.

It turned out, after walking up to the door, that it was only a jacket hanging on a hook. The angle at which I looked at it, combined with the light levels and creases in the hanging jacket, made it look like a face. This is a perfect example of how, as Richard Dawkins explains, the human brain 'constructs' images from previous memories. What I was seeing looked more like the silhouette of a face than a jacket, so my brain rendered it as such.

The same applies to sounds. Everything you see and hear isn't exactly what's there. Your sight and hearing are constructed in near-real time by your brain, using past memories as reference points when it isn't sure what it's looking at or hearing.

When you see a 'spirit' or some shit like that, it's probably your brain constructing a false image based on its best analysis of the data it's receiving from the eyes. If you hear someone talking in the night, then it's probably your brain constructing false sounds based on its best analysis of the data it's receiving from the ears.

Seeing isn't believing.

[Bluesman]

A few weeks ago, I thought I saw a man standing behind a door in my house. Needless to say, I flipped my shit. But then I went for a closer look.

It turned out, after walking up to the door, that it was only a jacket hanging on a hook. The angle at which I looked at it, combined with the light levels and creases in the hanging jacket, made it look like a face. This is a perfect example of how, as Richard Dawkins explains, the human brain 'constructs' images from previous memories. What I was seeing looked more like the silhouette of a face than a jacket, so my brain rendered it as such.

The same applies to sounds. Everything you see and hear isn't exactly what's there. Your sight and hearing are constructed in near-real time by your brain, using past memories as reference points when it isn't sure what it's looking at or hearing.

When you see a 'spirit' or some shit like that, it's probably your brain constructing a false image based on its best analysis of the data it's receiving from the eyes. If you hear someone talking in the night, then it's probably your brain constructing false sounds based on its best analysis of the data it's receiving from the ears.

Seeing isn't believing.

In a way I agree completely... 95% of "ghosts" are fake, but I still to believe that a small amount of cases are completely true.

[Sage]

I still to believe that a small amount of cases are completely true.

Where do you draw the line? What is the evidence that separates the 95% from the 5%?

[Bluesman]

Where do you draw the line? What is the evidence that separates the 95% from the 5%?

Honestly I'm not sure... you can just tell that some are more real than others. I'm not some sort of paranormal scientist... the best answer that I can give you is whether or not there's footage, repeat occurances of something, credibility of witnesses, stuff like that...

[LittleMonsterMike]

I believe in Ghost i have a couple of experience with ghosts, demons, angels then again i'm a psychic i come from a line of psychics I'm not crazy i'm far from crazy when i had my first experience i was scared i watched a black robed figure walking down the stairs in my apartment when i was little, i also remeber talking to my Grandpa when i was 6 ... he died when i was two

[Sage]

you can just tell that some are more real than others.
No. No you can not. If this is all your argument ultimately boils down to, I'm going to be the first to stop dignifying it with a response.

I believe in Ghost i have a couple of experience with ghosts, demons, angels then again I'm a psychic i come from a line of psychics I'm not crazy I'm far from crazy when i had my first experience i was scared i watched a black robed figure walking down the stairs in my apartment when i was little, i also remember talking to my Grandpa when i was 6 ... he died when i was two
Okay. I give up. No, disregard anything I've said about giving up before. There is nothing I can say that will make any difference to you people. That it's. It's over. I give up. This quote is a clusterfuck of everything wrong with everybody in this thread. If anyone really cares for an argument against this post, refer back to the last seven bloody pages.

I think I'm just going to stop posting in ROTW for a while now and resist the urge to kill myself.

/thread

[embers]

Sage, answer my questions. They're just a bit higher up this page. About definitions and such.

[Sage]

Sage, answer my questions. They're just a bit higher up this page. About definitions and such.

1) Don't tell me what to do.
2) Okay!

The problem with all these definitions is that they simply invoke other things that also need to be defined and proven.

[embers]

1) Don't tell me what to do.

Sorry D:

The problem with all these definitions is that they simply invoke other things that also need to be defined and proven.

All I saw that needed immediate definition in the definition of 'ghost' were the words 'soul' and 'spirit', which I did find definitions to.

[Sage]

All I saw that needed immediate definition in the definition of 'ghost' were the words 'soul' and 'spirit', which I did find definitions to.

Alas, being defined doesn't make something real. No one has given sufficient/legitimate evidence to prove the existence of souls or spirits either.

[Bluesman]

No. No you can not. If this is all your argument ultimately boils down to, I'm going to be the first to stop dignifying it with a response.
/thread

I'm saying there is clearly a line between psychotic nutjobs who are hallucinating that they are clairvoyant and can speak to their dead grandma and credible, reliable, honest people who have seen something inexplicable.

[embers]

Alas, being defined doesn't make something real. No one has given sufficient/legitimate evidence to prove the existence of souls or spirits either.

No, they haven't, but at least now with definitions you can actually address the evidence. (Because wasn't your whole point based on the idea that we can't look at evidence because we don't know what it is evidence of?)

[Sage]

I'm saying there is clearly a line between psychotic nutjobs who are hallucinating that they are clairvoyant and can speak to their dead grandma and credible, reliable, honest people who have seen something inexplicable.

I see nothing clear about this supposed line.

No, they haven't, but at least now with definitions you can actually address the evidence. (Because wasn't your whole point based on the idea that we can't look at evidence because we don't know what it is evidence of?)

If ghosts require souls and spirits to be proven to exist, and souls and spirits are not proven, then consequently ghosts are not proven either.

[embers]

If ghosts require souls and spirits to be proven to exist, and souls and spirits are not proven, then consequently ghosts are not proven either.

Fair enough.

[Bluesman]

If ghosts require souls and spirits to be proven to exist, and souls and spirits are not proven, then consequently ghosts are not proven either.

Agreed. Proven, no. Disproven, no as well.

[Sage]

Disproven, no as well.

You know what else hasn't been disproven?

unicorns reptillian humonoids dragons a tiny chinese teacup orbitting around jupiter the death of elvis presley unicorns he-man the flying spaghetti monster the idea that the universe actually started last thursday and all your memories and experiences are just false ideas implanted into your brain to cover it up slenderman cthulhu a secret society of sasquatch-men that abduct little children that get lost in the forest the complete pantheon of nordic mythology hobbits unicorns the world ending in 2012

Not being disproven doesn't give anything any sort of credibility.

[Amnesiac]

unicorns reptillian humonoids dragons a tiny chinese teacup orbitting around jupiter the death of elvis presley unicorns he-man the flying spaghetti monster the idea that the universe actually started last thursday and all your memories and experiences are just false ideas implanted into your brain to cover it up slenderman cthulhu a secret society of sasquatch-men that abduct little children that get lost in the forest the complete pantheon of nordic mythology hobbits unicorns the world ending in 2012


God.

[Sage]

God.


I don't even want to touch that can of worms in this thread.

[Amnesiac]

I don't even want to touch that can of worms in this thread.

Actually, I think more people on this forum believe in ghosts than God.

[Scooby Dooby Drew]

You know what else hasn't been disproven?

unicorns reptillian humonoids dragons a tiny chinese teacup orbitting around jupiter the death of elvis presley unicorns he-man the flying spaghetti monster the idea that the universe actually started last thursday and all your memories and experiences are just false ideas implanted into your brain to cover it up slenderman cthulhu a secret society of sasquatch-men that abduct little children that get lost in the forest the complete pantheon of nordic mythology hobbits unicorns the world ending in 2012

Not being disproven doesn't give anything any sort of credibility.
Unicorns is on there thrice :/

[danmanlott]

....

[Sage]

what can we say sage loves unicorns, and if he believes in it strong enough it must come true

If you actually paid attention to anything I've said throughout this thread it should be fairly clear that I don't believe in any of those things. The point I was making is that it is stupid to believe in something only because it has yet to be disproven- if that's how you're going to go about things, then you're open to believe in all sorts of completely stupid, idiotic things.

[kevinjk]

i believe there are spirits out there that have not yet gone to rest

[Sage]

i believe there are spirits out there that have not yet gone to rest

Why?