Do you believe in ghosts or the paranormal?

[Wuggy]

I don't believe in anything I don't see any reason to believe in. Think of Easter Bunny, you're familiar with the concept but there's nothing to indicate that it actually exists. This is my view on the paranormal (which includes but is not limited to ghosts, soul, god etc)

 

[Littlee300]

Probably not in this dimension (dimensions exist right?) but another one. Maybe there is in fact an organism that shares many traits as a ghost somewhere in the universe. Maybe they are scared of humans.

 

[haloman13]

Oh sure I believe in invisible bedsheets with eyes who spend all of their time shaking chains and scaring people........

 

[Danik93]

I did share an experience, i saw an apparition when I was little in an old theater rumored to be haunted and it scared me so bad I never forgot it. Last night, Iw ent into an old hospital, still very structurally sound, and a door unlatched itself and swung open, then a few minutes later slammed shut.

My door does th same thing it opens and closes on it's own. Because the backdraft opens it and when the door is open the backdraft changes and then the door close. It always freak out my friends the first time they get into my room!

 

[Dragonforce525]

Do I believe in ghosts and the paranormal? No, because I'm not 8.

 

[Turing '88]

This thread makes me sad You would think in this day and age people would have a bit more intelligence than believing in this sort of shit.

Before people start telling me their experiences and/or giving me pseudo-scientific theories on ghosts remember:

The human brain is what controls you and your personality. If you get a bang on the head it can drastically change your personality, it can literally turn you into a different person.

so how the fuck can your personality still exist when your brain is dead??

(hint: the answer is it can't) Before people say it's your soul or whatever, why do we have a brain then? and why does brain damage change your personality if that is decided by your soul?

There are a million other reasons believing in ghosts means your being stupid, but that one alone beats any and every argument you all have. Well, that and the fact we know why people believe in ghosts! (A lot of reasons, such as this-> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3046179.stm , conformation bias, pareidolia, tiredness...etc)

EDIT: Silly, naive, me. I forgot to add one of the biggest reasons people 'believe'. ££'s, $$'s or whatever your local currency. Whenever there are stupid people, there are smarter people ready to exploit them.

BTW, on the flat earth myth. This had probably been said, but anyway:

1. Since the ancient Greeks (at least, maybe earlier) we have known the earth is round.
2. Pretending scientists ever thought the world was flat, they would (quite rightly) only change their minds when someone proved it wasn't flat, or rather provided evidence that meant that a spherical earth was more likely than a flat one. (That is a good thing. If I say tomorrow the world is actually a cube I better have some damn good evidence to back it up.)
3. Again pretending science ever believed in a flat earth, surely the fact scientists are willing to change their views when new evidence is found shows that if there was evidence for ghosts, science would acknowledge it!

tl;dr Stop being silly, do some research on why human perception is actually very easily fooled before you say ghosts do/might exist.

And I know this has been said but it's worth repeating,

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

 

[CrazyMedic]

now I don't believe in ghosts in the ead sprites way I think that just has something to do with alternate dimensions and I have had three experiences

1. I was like 9 or 10 and was going home from school for the day when all of a sudden my desk starts shaking violently none of the other desks moved an inch, but all of a sudden the math book I had forgotten plops out onto the ground I walk back and check the whole desk and the only other person in that room was the teacher who was sitting at his desk on the far side of the room.

2. This was in Junior high and I was standing on the corner of a busy cross street when I feel a strong tug on the back of my shirt throwing me backwards and I was the only person there, when this kid riding a bike talking on his phone rides and odds are he would have knocked me into oncoming traffic, now I know that sounds far-fetched but I figured I would toss it in here too

3. I was in palm springs(my grandpa owns a condo there) and me and family were leaving to do something and I walk back into the house to get my coat, turn the lights on and there is this ghostly figure wearing leather clothing with war paint just standing there with this look of menace and I just felt this kind of "if I could I would cut you like a trout" kind of vibe coming off him, later I found out that the condo was built on Indian land.

and the way I look at it out of the millions of stories has to be right for ghosts to be real.

 

[Togs]

a valid argument=looking at the other side and looking into it extensively, then refuting what you can refute. You can't write off EVERYTHING. I'm not writing off everything. I'm also not arguing that ghosts are real. I do not believe in them. I experienced something during the day while I was wide awake. You can't 100% refute that. I don't 100% say it was paranormal. I'm not even arguing here. I'm not saying I "believe". I'm just saying I can't write it off, and listing my experiences I had. I have a feeling you didn't even read fully what I put down, either that or you were so eager to "write me off" you didn't bother to look at what I was saying.

I'm also saying this guy is very rude with the way he says things, and therefore I refuse to listen to his points due to me simply being offended by his attitude.

Yes i can refute that quite easily using my previous point of OUR BRAIN LIES TO US, OUR SENSES ARE FLAWED (my apologies for the caps lock but it may actually sink in this way).
And also you still havent answered my question how the original dude not bending over backwards to avoid from hurting your feelings effects the vaildity of his arguements, the point your provided is a massive leap in logic, but Ill play with it anyway- people like him and I have heard all of this arguement before, looked at them, assessed them, found the glaring great holes in them and refuted them, and refuted them time and time again.

Also got to say "Welcome To The Internet, Warning:Not For Those of A Sensitive Disposition".

EDIT= I am not close minded, I just make sure that my brain can't fall out.

 

[Crazycat690]

Nope, I believe in science

Well I believe in science as well, but then again, there's a psychic that my mom have gotten help from several times, and all of the times what he said was correct, and he don't even live in the same country. So how does science explain that?

Science, to me disproves all religions, not paranormal activity.

I always say that one who uses science to prove of disprove religion doesn't understand either. By definition science does disprove the paranormal though. If science would prove it, it would't be paranormal activity. So I don't agree with you on that note.
I won't argue with you on the psychic that helped your mom, as you already had a reply on that one.

Well fair enough, to my defence I posted late (atleast where I live) so I wasn't thinking straight, however, while science doesn't actually disprove all religion, it disproves many global events described in the bible etc like a global flood. But I rarely these days use science in my religion debates, when simple logic is so much better^^

But still, about the psychic, I can't say excactly what it was about, but seeing it with my own eyes I believe in it.

 

[ELD3RGoD]

Here's just something for you skeptics. If it is proven that some animals, like dogs, have a sixth sense, why can't some humans have developed this sense or evolved to have it? If you believe in the whole evolution thing. If you believe in evolution, like I, you'd realise the brain will grown stronger over time therefore developing in more areas and perhaps developing a sixth sense, the sensing of approaching danger, foresight or sensing the paranormal. If dogs have been scientifically proven to have this ability, why can't some humans have evolved to have it?

I am seeing a lot of 'logic' being thrown around. A lot of people saying herp-a-derp science! Just to clarify, science can nor prove, nor disapprove the paranormal, because it is just that, out of the ordinary. Scientists say it is UNLIKELY for ghosts and spirits and so forth, but they have no way to disapprove of their existence.

People talking about psychics is a completely different matter. I am sceptical about some psychics, some of them throw around bull crap for sure, spiritual doctors however have been known as an art and a rare one at that and have been treasured by African tribes and so on. My mother has been told she is extremely sensitive to ghosts, but she doesn't see them at all, she is just told she has a man who watches over her to protect her from the chains she is dragging all linked to spirits of the past. She says she has seen this man in her dreams and that is name is Edward and that he likes to watch over my dad as well in his current time of need.

Believe what you will about that but dogs have sixth senses, humans may well evolve or have all ready evolved to have some sensitivity to it and disregard what you will about spirits and ghosts but spend a night in my house when it decides to stop being quiet. I promise you, you could try and blag to yourself that it is pipes or the wind, but even you would know deep down that it couldn't have been so.

 

[Radelaide]

As someone who is capible of coherant thought and I'm not a complete loony, no I don't believe in the supernatural. I mean, I enjoy reading about it, watching TV shows and movies about it, but I'm not about to go searching for ghosts and things that go bump in the night because I'm quite aware that their existance defies logic.

Sorry to break it to you boys and girls, but it's not real.

 

[thePyro_13]

Stuff

Who has ever said dogs have a sixth sense? And who says that sixth sense can detect anything non-physical.

For instance, humans have more than six senses. Wikipedia says that for even the most conservative definition of 'sense' we have at least ten senses. Note that every sense(even ones used by animals) are detect and interpret physical data. Note they they are all worse at detecting that data than any devices we use anyway. So unless all ghosts and so on are comprised of some currently unknown physical substance or field, then no new sense would help us detect them. And since we haven't even the slightest hint of this undetectable field, odds are it doesn't interact with anything else, ever, making its existence(and the detection of it) pointless.

Science can prove anything which leaves evidence, anything that actually interacts with the word(including your brain) leaves evidence. So any legitimate paranormal activity should be observable by science. Any any activity that doesn't leave any evidence, can't have actually interacted with this universe, and from the perspective of humans, doesn't exist.

Taking all of the above in mind, no reported, postulated or claimed paranormal activity is worth investigating by real scientists, as it either is detectable, and left only evidence to suggest it was noting out of the ordinary(most likely people jumping to conclusions or just being too jumpy), or is nigh undetectable, meaning that even if it does exist, most paranormal stories are made up anyway and you've all been going in the wrong direction as this entire branch of paranormal stuff would only exist in a very small and specific way(and certainly wouldn't involve slamming doors or creaking houses, or even spooky looking shadows).

Finally, where'd you hear dogs have some special non-physical sixth sense? I did a google but it only returned logical non-paranormal explanations that made perfect sense. Such that dogs ability to detect danger is just a more sensitive combination of their other senses.

Finally finally, you should look up qualiasoup on you-tube, specifically "open-mindedness" and "it can't just be coincidence" it talks alot about what is required to provide actual scientific evidence of paranormal activity.

edit: I never meant to type such a large post...
I've probably gobbled up what I meant to say somewhere in there, so don't take it all too literally.

 

[rutger5000]

Nope, I believe in science

Well I believe in science as well, but then again, there's a psychic that my mom have gotten help from several times, and all of the times what he said was correct, and he don't even live in the same country. So how does science explain that?

Science, to me disproves all religions, not paranormal activity.

I always say that one who uses science to prove of disprove religion doesn't understand either. By definition science does disprove the paranormal though. If science would prove it, it would't be paranormal activity. So I don't agree with you on that note.
I won't argue with you on the psychic that helped your mom, as you already had a reply on that one.

Well fair enough, to my defence I posted late (atleast where I live) so I wasn't thinking straight, however, while science doesn't actually disprove all religion, it disproves many global events described in the bible etc like a global flood. But I rarely these days use science in my religion debates, when simple logic is so much better^^

But still, about the psychic, I can't say excactly what it was about, but seeing it with my own eyes I believe in it.

I know the bane of posting late. Said some really stupid things at 2:00 AM.
I didn't express myself properly I should have said: One who uses science to prove or disprove religion doesn't understand one of the two. A religion which consists only of miricals isn't a religion it is a fairy tale. A religion is more then the collection of supposed events. If you want to research the events described in say the bible (I seriously can't comprehend why, but lets say you want to do that), then you need to be much more flexible, and realize that is has been written thousands of years ago. People then didn't understand the world, a giant flood could just as well be a minor flood that just destroyed a tiny area. That area was considered as the whole world, because the people living there never had left it.

 

[artanis_neravar]

Well, there's gotta be a reason my pants lit on fire yesterday.

Maybe you should stop telling lies

Oh come on! I was just joking!

So was I, I was playing on the saying "Liar Liar pants on fire"

 

[AndyFromMonday]

what the fuck, ok i know my brain didn't screw with me. This isn't Inception here, a door opened by itself and slammed shut by itself, right in front of me and 5 others.

And there are loads of explanations for that but because you immediately linked the paranormal with the door opening you now remember it that way. In fact, every single one of your memories is tempered with except for your most recent ones. You remember everything the way YOU want to remember it.

They didn't scam their clients, they cured the whole fucking thing. That is the scenario of which I am speaking and which you CANNOT disagree is completely legitimate, no matter the method. Then, the person began believing that the cure didn't work. So then it didn't work anymore and the problem returned.

PLACEBO'S ARE NOT A CURE! PLEASE REMEMBER THIS!

Placebos are used to delay the inevitable. They only work for psychologically induced disorders and it does not cure it because ultimately the problem is still there. You don't treat the symptoms but the underlying cause. You don't treat a persons scizhophrenia with sugar pills hoping that at the very least he'll stop hallucinating.

Placebo's do NOT work and that 200 dollars can net you actual therapy from trained and experienced physicians that can actually help you. So would you rather those people spend the money on getting helped by trained, experienced physicians or spend them on bullshit?

CURE. The placebos which I am referring to would not simply cure short-term symptoms, but the whole shebang. The placebos WOULD cure the problem, if not by the same method as the genuine article.

You seem to have a gross misunderstanding of how placebos work. Placebos do not cure you, they can't. It's impossible for placebos to cure you because it's not the placebo that stops the pain or whatever you're experiencing, it's you. However, that does not treat the underlying disorder. If you have a brain tumour that's causing you headaches, the headaches might be gone but the tumour would still be there.

Bottom line, placebos CANNOT cure illnesses.

Like I've said above the "placebo" would actually cure the problem and supersede the "actual treatment." They aren't being tricked if they can actually cure everything via the placebo or their own will.

But they CAN'T cure everything. In fact, they cure absolutely nothing. How are you not getting this?

I myself was seriously ill once. My dad's girlfriend suggested (actually demanded is more accurate) that I take antibiotics. That was it for me. "Fuck this illness, I'm cured." AND I WAS. I didn't need the goddamn antibiotics. I didn't even know what the hell was wrong with me, I just concentrated every fiber of my being into being healthy again and I was. I have had no similar illness since. What do you think of that little anecdote?

You had a cold or possibly the flu. You didn't visit a physician so how the hell am I supposed to know what illness you had? You sure as hell didn't have a serious illness that's for sure.

If it works, I completely support it.

Sorry, it doesn't actually work. If you support "it" though when you contract pneumonia make sure to take sugar pills and not antibiotics and see how you feel.

*facepalm* I'm talking about hard, on-the-street, fuck-you-up-if-you-look-at-them-wrong drugs! And I am saying that IF IT DID FUCKING WORK THEN HE WOULD BE SUPERSEDING THE NEED FOR ACTUAL DRUGS. IF IT WORKED. I wouldn't be making any of these suppositions if that wasn't the case!

To bad placebos don't cure the underlying cause.

So testimonials aren't evidence, even if the source is completely credible? Huh. That's a strange assertion, care to tell me where it came from?

The source is never infallible therefore the best kind of evidence is one that you can test and reproduce under the right conditions.

 

[Crazycat690]

Nope, I believe in science

Well I believe in science as well, but then again, there's a psychic that my mom have gotten help from several times, and all of the times what he said was correct, and he don't even live in the same country. So how does science explain that?

Science, to me disproves all religions, not paranormal activity.

I always say that one who uses science to prove of disprove religion doesn't understand either. By definition science does disprove the paranormal though. If science would prove it, it would't be paranormal activity. So I don't agree with you on that note.
I won't argue with you on the psychic that helped your mom, as you already had a reply on that one.

Well fair enough, to my defence I posted late (atleast where I live) so I wasn't thinking straight, however, while science doesn't actually disprove all religion, it disproves many global events described in the bible etc like a global flood. But I rarely these days use science in my religion debates, when simple logic is so much better^^

But still, about the psychic, I can't say excactly what it was about, but seeing it with my own eyes I believe in it.

I know the bane of posting late. Said some really stupid things at 2:00 AM.
I didn't express myself properly I should have said: One who uses science to prove or disprove religion doesn't understand one of the two. A religion which consists only of miricals isn't a religion it is a fairy tale. A religion is more then the collection of supposed events. If you want to research the events described in say the bible (I seriously can't comprehend why, but lets say you want to do that), then you need to be much more flexible, and realize that is has been written thousands of years ago. People then didn't understand the world, a giant flood could just as well be a minor flood that just destroyed a tiny area. That area was considered as the whole world, because the people living there never had left it.

Yes, that's exactly my point actually, they thought it was the entire world, and to me if they was acting directly under God they would have been more enlighted than that. But, that's what the bible, and religion is about, to force people to live in ignorance.

 

[Scar05]

Idk if I really believe in the paranormal or not - I can't really say that it does exist but I can't say that it doesn't either.

It's strange - despite evidence of the paranormal running through my entire family we are all sceptics (mostly - we won't admit it exists but won't deny it either). To put it into perspective, my family never wasted time believing in things that clearly doesn't exist -----SPOILERS ------ Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, etc. it was always straight up 'hey this is how it is and this is what happens'. They would never speak about experiences with the paranormal, or endorsed anything perceived or believed to be paranormal. However after experiencing it myself (in a way - mine is more "sixth-sense" rather than paranormal) I started to question what others had experienced and was surprised to discover how many people throughout my family had experienced it (situations beyond rational scientific, even far fetched, explanations). And it's not like they pooled stories or encouraged these behaviour or beliefs - most of them didn't even know others had experienced the paranormal as well. Most of these were not just one-off experiences, also it seemed that each person experienced / was aware of "their paranormal" differently.

Still these things are still very hard to prove properly - kinda like trying to prove colours exist through experiments made by and for the colour-blind. The only thing everyone can agree with is that not everyone experiences the paranormal (or what is perceived to be paranormal). Perhaps being aware of the paranormal only emerges through certain families and/or individuals, emerging from deep within our genetic makeup, or perhaps we're all just breeding crazy.

 

[Julianking93]

It is scary. The idea of something that can hurt me but I have no way of hurting it back is pretty scary. The video does look pretty fake. The thing at the end looks like an abomination from the Dragon Age games. I have never experienced any paranormal activity and I hope to keep it that way.

Not even that, but simply not knowing what it really is that has the ability to harm you. It's more of an unknown thing for me, I think.
And yeah, the video does look fake, albeit well done fake, but still fake. The weird red... garbage bag looking abortion thing looks like something from the original Resident Evil game but still, the whole thing is scary.

 

[Stublore]

I don't know what to believe.
I've seen some convincing stuff and some... really unconvincing stuff as well, so really I don't know what to believe.
I've had my own experiences with strange goings on but I can't instantly label is as "OMFGUGUISEGHOSTS!!!!" but I can't say it's nothing so basically.... I'unno.

Though, things like this, even if it's fake, make me pretty damn scared and question my ideals.

Even if it's fake??
Of course it's bloody fake!
Mind if I ask you a question?
Are you older than 10 or 11?
Do you really believe that the "reporter" was "driven insane" by what she saw?

 

[0986875533423]

sir or madam you are a fool, i'm fully aware of the behavious of light and how shadows are made, you don't need to explain it to me, and i know full well that for an invisible thing to cast a shadow is to defy physics, if the thing casting the shadow were visible then it would be fully explainable, however it is invisible which does of course contradict physics, which is why we call it "paranormal" which is why i brought it up, if all the stories on this thread included a logical explanation then they wouldn't be in the right place now would they?

And this is a perfect example of the "us and them" attitude to science that I hate so much. You cannot have something that "contradicts" physics. Physics is science, and science is our understanding of the world around us. You are a scientist, and so am I.

You can't say "I have someething that contravenes our generally accepted idea of its parent field, but that's inconvenient for both me and others so I'm just going to say my example is an exception to the rule and carry on regardless" because that is called "religion" and I would slap you for perpetuation of such foolishness were you physically in front of me.

When there is a scientific rule there are no exceptions to the rule. If there are, the rule is wrong and needs to be redefined. When you say "This invisible thing casts a shadow" what that also entails is "I think our current understanding of how light behaves when confronted with invisible or transparent objects is wrong, or too simple, as there is an eventuality it does not cover" and if you aren't prepared to do that, I would give up now and start looking for an alternative explanation than "invisible trees".

It is quite evident from your previous posts that this is something you do not understand, so I'd keep the "fool" comments to a minimum.