Poll: Do you believe in ghosts?
- Thread starter Thegreatoz
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Vampires are a completely different story-- they're out there. I actually make vampire hunting a hobby of sorts-- you don't often find one, but when you do it's always an exciting hunt. I've got a few of their bodies stored in my parent's garage (don't worry-- the corpses have been pierced through the heart with a crucifix made of garlic).
I don't believe in ghosts.
And IF ghosts exist, there would be probably no way to prove it, as there are just about always logical reasons behind ghost sightings.
That said, i do not BELIEVE, however, i also do not deny the possiblity that such things may EXIST.
Like God, Reincarnation or whatever, it is only logic that things man cannot comprehend may exist and that we are unaware of it exactly because of that.
However that would mean that it is unlikely that Ghosts, as we imagine them (!), do not exist.
And IF ghosts exist, there would be probably no way to prove it, as there are just about always logical reasons behind ghost sightings.
That said, i do not BELIEVE, however, i also do not deny the possiblity that such things may EXIST.
Like God, Reincarnation or whatever, it is only logic that things man cannot comprehend may exist and that we are unaware of it exactly because of that.
However that would mean that it is unlikely that Ghosts, as we imagine them (!), do not exist.
Ghosts, the afterlife, psychics, gods, reincarnation... It all boils down to five-year old logic from people who defy logical thought.
"You can't prove that ghosts exist or not, so my opinion's still valid!"
But the worst aspect of this crap? Derek Acorah. If I hear the words "residual energy" one more time, I'm hunting him down and gutting him in his sleep. Let's see if that spirit guide of his lets him know where his intestines have been relocated to.
"You can't prove that ghosts exist or not, so my opinion's still valid!"
But the worst aspect of this crap? Derek Acorah. If I hear the words "residual energy" one more time, I'm hunting him down and gutting him in his sleep. Let's see if that spirit guide of his lets him know where his intestines have been relocated to.
Short answer: No.
Long answer: Ghosts are a combination of wishful thinking and an active imagination.
Ever woken up in the night and seen a shadow and KNOWN that it's someone there, until you turn the light on and "oh, it was just my shirt hung over the closet door"?
Take that, sprinkle in a good deal of "I wish Robert was here today", add a smudge and a backlit bush in your daughter's wedding photo and voila: "That's Robert! His ghost was there that day!"
"No, that's just a smudge and a bush. It's a coincidence"
"It's Robert's ghost. This blurry thing that looks like a round shape with two eyes, if you squint and hold it like this, is proof!!!"
Also: Residual Energy.
Long answer: Ghosts are a combination of wishful thinking and an active imagination.
Ever woken up in the night and seen a shadow and KNOWN that it's someone there, until you turn the light on and "oh, it was just my shirt hung over the closet door"?
Take that, sprinkle in a good deal of "I wish Robert was here today", add a smudge and a backlit bush in your daughter's wedding photo and voila: "That's Robert! His ghost was there that day!"
"No, that's just a smudge and a bush. It's a coincidence"
"It's Robert's ghost. This blurry thing that looks like a round shape with two eyes, if you squint and hold it like this, is proof!!!"
Also: Residual Energy.
Well, as there's no real physical evidence that disprooves ghosts I'd have to say yes, they exist.
If you say there's no such thing as ghosts in your opinion that's okay, but if you announce that ghosts don't exist as a fact, your thick, because obviously, you can't proove that.
If you say there's no such thing as ghosts in your opinion that's okay, but if you announce that ghosts don't exist as a fact, your thick, because obviously, you can't proove that.
There is a giant invisible elephant right behind you. You can't prove there's NOT one there, you might just not be able to see or smell or touch it. Doesn't mean it's not there, thus it has to be there. Flawless logic, really.Esta said:
Actually, invisible just means not visible, not intangible. Therefore, your logic fails and you required outside assistance from someone who does believe in ghosts to illustrate your point of trying to (sarcastically) say that ghosts do not exist if you were to correct yourself and say intangible or come up with another example. And it isn't an elephant, it's a giant mutant venus fly trap that only eats prehistoric dragonflies, get it right.propertyofcobra said:
Also "right behind you" is highly subjective as "right" isn't a quantitative measurement.
You cannot disprove the allegation that Julius Caesar was in, in fact, an alien cyborg sent here to change the course of history. You can't produce a body, nor is there any historic document expressly saying that he was not an alien cyborg.
If you say that he was not an alien cyborg in your opinion that's okay, but if you announce that he wasn't an alien cyborg as a fact, you're thick, because obviously, you can't prove that.
Sounds a bit silly doesn't it?
Trying to prove a negative is insanely hard, especially when there's virtually nothing to actually look for/investigate with this kind of thing. Believing in something just because it cannot be dis-proven is an iffy way to go about things, simply because it gives the benefit of the doubt to literally anything and everything without evidence to the contrary.
Believing in something is just fine, I think. But belief without evidence is just that, a belief. That's not to belittle belief and faith, they make up a bit part of this world, but to call people thick because they cannot disprove your beliefs or disagree with them seems a bit extreme.
If you say that he was not an alien cyborg in your opinion that's okay, but if you announce that he wasn't an alien cyborg as a fact, you're thick, because obviously, you can't prove that.
Sounds a bit silly doesn't it?
Trying to prove a negative is insanely hard, especially when there's virtually nothing to actually look for/investigate with this kind of thing. Believing in something just because it cannot be dis-proven is an iffy way to go about things, simply because it gives the benefit of the doubt to literally anything and everything without evidence to the contrary.
Believing in something is just fine, I think. But belief without evidence is just that, a belief. That's not to belittle belief and faith, they make up a bit part of this world, but to call people thick because they cannot disprove your beliefs or disagree with them seems a bit extreme.
Per my understanding of Atheism, no, not really. To paraphrase, Atheism is the belief that there are no deities. That, in and of itself, is as much of a "belief" as believing IN deities. There is no empirical evidence for or against the existence of one or more deities.LordOmnit said:
If anything, I'd say the statement leans more towards agnosticism.
On a personal note, I've always been a fan of militant agnosticism. (I don't know and you don't either.) I think it applies as well to this case of ghostism, as it does to the case of a/theism.
I'm the only Agnostic I know. I didnt even think that was the right word for it because I invented it myself without hearing of it... I'll have to check it out on wikipedia