Poll: Do you believe in ghosts?
- Thread starter ToastiestZombie
- Start date
So...you don't reject anything at all, then.DoPo said:Seriously, what the hell people? When I say you haven't disproved them, I mean just that, you haven't disproved them. You know what's wise - not everything is a binary issue. So stop trying to make me think stuff I don't want to. Ghosts are not disproved =/= they exist.Da Orky Man said:There is also nothing to disprove that I have a pet unicorn with a jetpack, but it doesn't mean I do have one. You can't prove a negative, it would be wise to remember that.DoPo said:Just pointing stuff out. The ghosts exist in an indeterminate state - nothing really points toward their existence or non-existence. I think we can draw a conclusion from that, though - Schrodinger is not having a really fun time after his death.Hazy992 said:DoPo said:
Is that a joke or...?
For the record, I'll just state again something I've said before: I believe in things that can be proven, directly or indirectly. That which cannot be proven should not be accepted or rejected as truth. Blind faith is the root of ignorance and stupidity.
That's wisdom right there. Remember it.
The same things you say for ghosts could be said for Santa, unicorns (with jetpacks), fairies that hold water molecules together, aliens that steal your food at night, replicate it, and put the copies back right before you wake up every morning, or anything else.
All of these should not be rejected, according to you, because to disclaim these all as childish (so long as they are without evidence) would be equivalent to "blind faith." According to your very words.
No one here is claiming that ghosts absolutely cannot exist, only that, since we lack any evidence (like with unicorns), it would be foolish to claim that they do exist.
100% ruling out anything seems quite dumb really. I don't thing there is a god, but there might be. Same with ghosts, I really really doubt it, so I voted no, but there could be. You can never be 100% completely sure of anything. If ghosts were proven even then I wouldn't 100% believe. We could be in the matrix right now, and if it turns out there are ghosts it could be bored people in the real world playing tricks on us 
I'm not much into chemistry, but I thought these were disproved.chadachada123 said:
Anyway, yes - I would like more proof before I accept or reject something. I'm not outright dismissing things because they are "childish" but they do exist in an undefined status until then.
And yet, there were people that assumed that I was saying they do and they were not OK with that at all. That's real logical thinking there "Well, I'm waiting for sufficient proof for the existence of ghosts but I'll also dismiss any [imagined] claims that they do without a second thought." Sounds fair and scientific. Not.chadachada123 said:
I believe in ghosts.. i believe that there has to be some form of afterlife.. but as much as i believe in them id still be scared absolutely stiff if i saw one.. doesnt stop me from wanting to go on a ghost tour once in my life though.
A hypothesis being untestable is NOT a testament to its strength, it is a testament to its weakness.DoPo said:
If there is no way to disprove or prove a hypothesis, then there is no way it can be used to make any predictions about what would happen if you did something about it.
Put another way...
many people (I call them ID-iots) believe the Theory of Evolution is either bunk or that Creationism is on equal footing with it. These people are WRONG.
Yes, Creationism has technically been around longer than the theory of evolution, but, it has only been repeatedly asserted in that time, never proven. It also hasn't been disproven... but then... how does one go about disproving/proving the existence of a being that is supposed to be 'outside of nature', and therefore undetectable by any of our methods?
Evolution on the other hand, has been thoroughly contested both by the scientific community and... some other people for 200+ years, and it is still held up as our best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. And what would disprove it? Just one fossil in the wrong place. All it would take is to find say, a modern bunny rabbit's fossil in the Pre-Cambrean soil. No such anachronistic fossils have been found.
ON topic: No, I don't believe in ghosts. No real evidence to even suggest that they exist. Just people's imaginations getting ahead of them at best, and people going stark-raving buggo at worst.
Also, fuck those people who claim they can hold a conversation with someone's dead relatives, they are nothing more than charlatans taking advantage of someone else's grief for a buck. These people should be sued out of business at every opportunity.
I'm debating whether to start calling anyone who doesn't have a clue what I'm talking about, an idiot and leave it at that. I won't for now, though. However, you did write five paragraphs that were besides the point. Which is...applaudable in some ways, I guess.TheDoctor455 said:
Pretty sure people have reported animal ghosts before. I'm not saying that I believe them just that it has happened.Midgeamoo said:
The most evil pervasive feeling I have ever felt was at an old concentration camp on the french border. That's the only thing that nudges my scepticism a bit. It was pretty oppressive.
I certainly don't believe in ghosts but I don't know what the hell that was either.
The closest thing to objective proof of ghosts is the jumbled background noise that some people have tried to pass off as the cries of ghosts. And even that is incredibly subjective, relying on the listener to make out the speech patterns amongst the other crap which is conveniently dismissed. If it does pick up the voices of ghosts, is it just the one ghost that speaks clearly and in English, or is it having a seizure whilst trying to speak? The most common form of evidence is completely subjective, being anecdotes. I really have no reason to believe that ghosts exist, having never seen one myself, nor having seen proof of one that cannot be explained by "That person is delusional".
Logically, I kind of find it hard to believe in them, because there isn't much in the way of credible hard evidence. But on some primal level, it would explain things at times. Like the kettle in the kitchen that randomly started boiling itself one night after everyone was in bed. Or last night where I woke up and there was this shadow in the shape of a person standing over my bed that I auto-punched out at and it disappeared in a swirl, dog was growling/grunting too which is what woke me up (he slept on my bed), that kind of freaked me out a bit (as my girlish scream could attest to at the time). But I know that your mind supposedly plays tricks on you when you first wake up sometimes (also, the Panadeine for my headache may have had something to do with it), so.. yeah.. But ghosts would be a much simpler explanation. It would explain may odd things that have happened in this house over the years, but as far as I know no one has died here (I think.. maybe) and the house is only 40-50 years old.
Maybe Ghosts are just the ultimate trolls. The jerks.
Maybe Ghosts are just the ultimate trolls. The jerks.
NO.
I absolutely hate when an adult is telling a story about seeing a Ghost, its completely embarrassing I don't know where to look.
I absolutely hate when an adult is telling a story about seeing a Ghost, its completely embarrassing I don't know where to look.
No, I don't not believe in ghosts because they always end up explainable and more importantly because I'm a catholic. They are really cool in fiction though. American Horror Story? That series was messed up.