So do you believe in ghosts? Why?

[Togs]

I'd advise you to first lose the preconception that I'm not familiar with Hamlet, and then read it again. I never mentioned anything about me being rational, nor am I claiming that my situation is a direct parallel to Hamlet's. We arrive at the same conclusion, but our reasoning differs.

His grief caused him to be clutching at straws of contact, which is why he's perfectly ready to believe that anything in a white bedsheet could be his father.
I'm not grieving, or specifically looking for any sign of the supernatural, but if some wavy apparition comes by I'll certainly be most curious to what it has to say. After all: why the hell not?

You seem to of completely missed my point- that quote is used to accuse those who dont believe in the supernatural of being close minded, my rebuttal was that the guy who says it is nuts and so therefore the quote is meaningless in this context.
As for your second point, yeah I probably would too, but in a situation that blatant its more likely Ive lost the plot then Im being contacted from "the other side".

 

[Togs]

Yes I do. Why? It's very simple.

Can you prove they don't exist?

Can you prove they do? And prove it without resorting to the same old tired cliches that get drawn out in this situation?

And yes science cant directly prove that they dont, but it can prove the stuff that people mistake for ghosts and ghoulies has other, more mundane explanations.

Oh and-

 

[Garrsus]

well, i cant say, i believe something is around just out of our understanding, which could be anything so i don't 'not' believe in anything, just in case it turns out to be true. i do think that the whole ghost fiasco holds some water, i mean, i have seen people who are not there, but it was ages ago so i may just have imagined them or something. but if thousands of people say yes then something may be going on right?

 

[Lightning Delight]

Yes I do. Why? It's very simple.

Can you prove they don't exist?

Can you prove they do? And prove it without resorting to the same old tired cliches that get drawn out in this situation?

And yes science cant directly prove that they dont, but it can prove the stuff that people mistake for ghosts and ghoulies has other, more mundane explanations.

Oh and-

No, I cannot prove that they do exist. Which seems to put us in the stalemate that I so often find myself in when I have this discussion. Oh well.

And for the record, I don't believe the people who hear a creaky house and scream "Ghosts!!" or try to go hunting for ghosts and whatnot. They are just nutters. But I like to think that there are some things in life that you just can't explain, but that doesn't make them any less true by default.

And that video was fantastic.

 

[Kargathia]

I'd advise you to first lose the preconception that I'm not familiar with Hamlet, and then read it again. I never mentioned anything about me being rational, nor am I claiming that my situation is a direct parallel to Hamlet's. We arrive at the same conclusion, but our reasoning differs.

His grief caused him to be clutching at straws of contact, which is why he's perfectly ready to believe that anything in a white bedsheet could be his father.
I'm not grieving, or specifically looking for any sign of the supernatural, but if some wavy apparition comes by I'll certainly be most curious to what it has to say. After all: why the hell not?

You seem to of completely missed my point- that quote is used to accuse those who dont believe in the supernatural of being close minded, my rebuttal was that the guy who says it is nuts and so therefore the quote is meaningless in this context.
As for your second point, yeah I probably would too, but in a situation that blatant its more likely Ive lost the plot then Im being contacted from "the other side".

It does seem like we're on the same page when it comes to interpretation. It's a believer who might be nuts accusing a non-believer of being close-minded.
Sounds like a quite fair summary of this whole "do you believe in ghosts?" thing.

It's indeed quite likely that as soon as either of us starts seeing apparitions we've lost the plot. But then again: bedsheet phantasms are a lot more interesting than said plot ever was, regardless of whether any by-then deceased fathers have anything to do with it.

 

[PurePareidolia]

Yeah of course I do. Weirder shit has been scientifically proven. Take a look at quantum physics for 5 seconds ^^

Your weak link is that the weird stuff that's been scientifically proven has actually been scientifically proven. That's why they're considered true and ghosts aren't.

 

[Togs]

It does seem like we're on the same page when it comes to interpretation. It's a believer who might be nuts accusing a non-believer of being close-minded.
Sounds like a quite fair summary of this whole "do you believe in ghosts?" thing.

It's indeed quite likely that as soon as either of us starts seeing apparitions we've lost the plot. But then again: bedsheet phantasms are a lot more interesting than said plot ever was.

Now Im properly confused- are you ageeing with me or calling me close minded? If so just reread every post from us "nonbelievers" as to why thats abit silly.

And I always kinda liked Hamlet, im probably wrong here but I thought it was Shakespeare dong a psychological thriller?, which is the type of thing I love, but to me Shakespeare has always been about the language and individual performance.

 

[Togs]

No, I cannot prove that they do exist. Which seems to put us in the stalemate that I so often find myself in when I have this discussion. Oh well.

And for the record, I don't believe the people who hear a creaky house and scream "Ghosts!!" or try to go hunting for ghosts and whatnot. They are just nutters. But I like to think that there are some things in life that you just can't explain, but that doesn't make them any less true by default.

And that video was fantastic.

Meh I used to as well, but then my training in the scientific field led me to adopt the position that the scientific method is the only way to interpret the world around us- its yet to be proved and so I dont believe it, if it gets proved Ill change my mind as well as being very happy- how awesome would it be if we could communicate with loved ones who have passed on? Or famous people throughout history?

And yeah Tim Minchin is awesome

 

[thePyro_13]

No, I cannot prove that they do exist. Which seems to put us in the stalemate that I so often find myself in when I have this discussion. Oh well.

And for the record, I don't believe the people who hear a creaky house and scream "Ghosts!!" or try to go hunting for ghosts and whatnot. They are just nutters. But I like to think that there are some things in life that you just can't explain, but that doesn't make them any less true by default.

And that video was fantastic.

That stalemate comes across as your loss, "prove they don't exist" is a logical fallacy. You cannot prove that anything doesn't exist. We prove that things do exist. But we cannot prove that something isn't happening as that would require us to completely examine all evidence everywhere, which simply isn't feasible unless we already know everything. The onus of proof is on the person who claims something exists.

You cannot prove that gods don't exist.
You cannot prove that CatDog doesn't exist.
You cannot prove that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist.

That's no good reason to believe in those three things(you can have other reasons if you so wish, but not the above reasons). And the person who cannot prove that CatDog doesn't exist does not stalemate with me. If I think catdog exists, I have to prove it.

This is true for all parts of life. Suspected criminals must be proven guilty, it's not up to them to prove themselves innocent. New theory's are assumed to be wrong first, and must be proven to be correct.

Proving a negative is impossible. Any argument that relys on tricking your opponent into trying to prove a negative is simply wrong. Please don't do it. If you don't want to defend your belief, then just don't argue about it. Your wasting the time of anyone who is putting research and logic into their argument when you start working with fallacies.

Prove I'm not a ghost! Prove ghosts cannot touch keyboards! Now you have to agree that I am a ghost or we have to agree to disagree. Stalemate indeed.

 

[Ranorak]

Lol. So youre specifically targeting my belief, because i give a reason why? xD
And while yes, it is different, so are most theories that pop up.
You yes again, dont have to believe it. You can argue with it. But unless you understand every little bit of spacetime, the workings of every level of magnetism, and the every aspect of the human body, with definitive proof that theres another reason for ghosts existance, or non-existence, it just comes down to you, challanging my belief because you dont believe it.

You dont believe ghosts exist xD Fine. Why dont you believe they exist? Lets see what makes your reason they dont any stronger then my reason they do. ((Basically what your doing here))

We cant explain ghosts. We cant disprove them. No belief is wrong, nor right in this situation. My belief is based on more then most. The people who think, "YES THEY EXIST" normally dont give a reason why other then fuzzy photos. At least im making some effort to explain them other then, "Everyone whos seen one is crazy, paranoid or stupid".

The reason why I don't believe is the very logical and rational position of "proof it".
There is NO proof that ghosts exists.
To me Ghosts are just like Lochness monster, Bigfoot and Alien Abduction.
I'm not saying that they are 100% impossible. But as of yet, there is no real proof that they are real.

At least im making some effort to explain them other then, "Everyone whos seen one is crazy, paranoid or stupid".

I never said that.
Conformation bias, power of suggesting (even to one self), Face perception, wishful thinking, Sleep paralysis, Hollow-Face illusion etc. are not symptoms of being crazy, stupid or paranoid, they are the mind playing tricks on you.

 

[ezeroast]

no, for the same reason I don't believe in demons and the Loc Ness monster.
Zero credible evidence.

 

[Kargathia]

It does seem like we're on the same page when it comes to interpretation. It's a believer who might be nuts accusing a non-believer of being close-minded.
Sounds like a quite fair summary of this whole "do you believe in ghosts?" thing.

It's indeed quite likely that as soon as either of us starts seeing apparitions we've lost the plot. But then again: bedsheet phantasms are a lot more interesting than said plot ever was.

Now Im properly confused- are you ageeing with me or calling me close minded? If so just reread every post from us "nonbelievers" as to why thats abit silly.

And I always kinda liked Hamlet, im probably wrong here but I thought it was Shakespeare dong a psychological thriller?, which is the type of thing I love, but to me Shakespeare has always been about the language and individual performance.

Let's just start at the beginning then, as I'm not sure either where I lost you.

I posted three lines of Hamlet, where Hamlet is indeed accusing Horatio of being close-minded. The subtler part behind it is that to the audience it seems quite clear that Hamlet is off his rocker.

These often are the extremes in this debate about whether ghosts exist. One side accuses the other of being mad, while the alleged madman retorts with accusations of close-mindedness.
Neither side is right, but - just as importantly - neither is either of them wrong.

Personally I place myself in the middle, where I don't believe or disbelieve anything until it's been proven either way.

And if at any time in the future some white bedsheet starts clanking its chains in my room then I'll invite him for some tea, and enjoy every minute of my alleged insanity.

EDIT: The literal, alternate interpretation of the second and third lines also holds true, even if it means taking it out of context.
There are things around us science hasn't fully explained, and why shouldn't we remember that?

 

[dfphetteplace]

No. It makes no damn sense at all. There is no such thing as a soul. There is not evidence of ghost or anything of the like, either. It is always just first or 3rd hand accounts about things being strange or seeing something that is otherwise explainable by something that is much more likely. The only people that experience ghost or demons are people that already believe in them. Apparently being an atheist makes you safe from this type of activity I guess. My best friend believes in this crap and it can be annoying as hell.

 

[dfphetteplace]

Yes I do. Why? It's very simple.

Can you prove they don't exist?

It is not up to the skeptic to disprove any accusation. The proof of the accusation lies upon the accuser.

 

[kouriichi]

Lol. So youre specifically targeting my belief, because i give a reason why? xD
And while yes, it is different, so are most theories that pop up.
You yes again, dont have to believe it. You can argue with it. But unless you understand every little bit of spacetime, the workings of every level of magnetism, and the every aspect of the human body, with definitive proof that theres another reason for ghosts existance, or non-existence, it just comes down to you, challanging my belief because you dont believe it.

You dont believe ghosts exist xD Fine. Why dont you believe they exist? Lets see what makes your reason they dont any stronger then my reason they do. ((Basically what your doing here))

We cant explain ghosts. We cant disprove them. No belief is wrong, nor right in this situation. My belief is based on more then most. The people who think, "YES THEY EXIST" normally dont give a reason why other then fuzzy photos. At least im making some effort to explain them other then, "Everyone whos seen one is crazy, paranoid or stupid".

The reason why I don't believe is the very logical and rational position of "proof it".
There is NO proof that ghosts exists.
To me Ghosts are just like Lochness monster, Bigfoot and Alien Abduction.
I'm not saying that they are 100% impossible. But as of yet, there is no real proof that they are real.

At least im making some effort to explain them other then, "Everyone whos seen one is crazy, paranoid or stupid".

I never said that.
Conformation bias, power of suggesting (even to one self), Face perception, wishful thinking, Sleep paralysis, Hollow-Face illusion etc. are not symptoms of being crazy, stupid or paranoid, they are the mind playing tricks on you.

But for the mind to play tricks on you, you have to believe there can be something there to begin with right? You cant have a trick played on you, if you dont believe in the trick to begin with. You have to be paranoid that something is there, for your mind to believe it can truly be there.

Your explanation for everyone being tricked is basically, "Everyone either has an overactive imagination or....." When the truth is, many credible witnesses have come forward. People who live near bears all theyre life know what is, and what isnt a bear.
To dismiss every single persons testimony ever as "a trick played by the mind" is to say that we cant use them in criminal trials, because they could have been fooled, or tricked into thinking it was somebody, because they saw a picture of that person.

And the fact that there is no proof of ghosts doesnt prove they dont exist, same goes with bigfoot, nessy, and aliens. Were finding new species everyday. Ever species we thought were looooooong extinct. Coelacanth, Lord Howe, and Cuban solenodon were all thought to be completely gone off the face of the earth.
Whos to say Gigantapithecus is? ((giant ape that walked on 2 legs))

To dispute that something doesnt exist because of lack of evidence is to be closed minded xD We get new evidence every day. Just look at dark matter. We thought it wall as science fiction until we found out it made up the majority of the universe.

While yes, my belief is different ((and i cant stress that enough)), its not as far fetched as you'd think. Its an explanation for how they could exist.

You cant offer proof its wrong! So i must be mostly right! (basically what your saying)

A logical and rational person dont need proof to believe it exists. They use their logic and ration to find proof. ((either in favor, or to the contrary.))

 

[Togs]

Let's just start at the beginning then, as I'm not sure either where I lost you.

I posted three lines of Hamlet, where Hamlet is indeed accusing Horatio of being close-minded. The subtler part behind it is that to the audience it seems quite clear that Hamlet is off his rocker.

These often are the extremes in this debate about whether ghosts exist. One side accuses the other of being mad, while the alleged madman retorts with accusations of close-mindedness.
Neither side is right, but - just as importantly - neither is either of them wrong.

Personally I place myself in the middle, where I don't believe or disbelieve anything until it's been proven either way.

And if at any time in the future some white bedsheet starts clanking its chains in my room then I'll invite him for some tea, and enjoy every minute of my alleged insanity.

Ah but thats where the crux of the arguement comes in- things people assign to supernatural elements can be explained through more mundane means, that eery howl is just the wind blowing through a key hole or that scary shadow is just a distorted shadow cast by a piece of furniture.
The stuff that cant be explained like that doesnt automatically prove the nonbelievers wrong until the believers can explain it using the scientific method as empirically obtained evidence is the only way to be sure that said evidence is correct- thats not being close minded its common sense.
And taking an agnostic standpoint is diplomatically admirable but not really a good one in any other way, especially when our good friend Logic says that we can predict the probability of the nonbelievers being right.
And you've got a rather unique view on insanity- if it was me Id get up and submit myself for psychiatric obversation quick sharp.

 

[Lightning Delight]

No, I cannot prove that they do exist. Which seems to put us in the stalemate that I so often find myself in when I have this discussion. Oh well.

And for the record, I don't believe the people who hear a creaky house and scream "Ghosts!!" or try to go hunting for ghosts and whatnot. They are just nutters. But I like to think that there are some things in life that you just can't explain, but that doesn't make them any less true by default.

And that video was fantastic.

That stalemate comes across as your loss, "prove they don't exist" is a logical fallacy. You cannot prove that anything doesn't exist. We prove that things do exist. But we cannot prove that something isn't happening as that would require us to completely examine all evidence everywhere, which simply isn't feasible unless we already know everything. The onus of proof is on the person who claims something exists.

You cannot prove that gods don't exist.
You cannot prove that CatDog doesn't exist.
You cannot prove that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist.

That's no good reason to believe in those three things(you can have other reasons if you so wish, but not the above reasons). And the person who cannot prove that CatDog doesn't exist does not stalemate with me. If I think catdog exists, I have to prove it.

This is true for all parts of life. Suspected criminals must be proven guilty, it's not up to them to prove themselves innocent. New theory's are assumed to be wrong first, and must be proven to be correct.

Proving a negative is impossible. Any argument that relys on tricking your opponent into trying to prove a negative is simply wrong. Please don't do it. If you don't want to defend your belief, then just don't argue about it. Your wasting the time of anyone who is putting research and logic into their argument when you start working with fallacies.

Prove I'm not a ghost! Prove ghosts cannot touch keyboards! Now you have to agree that I am a ghost or we have to agree to disagree. Stalemate indeed.

Yikes. Remind me to never use the word "stalemate" so casually ever again.

You seem to be under the impression that I believe in ghosts simply because they cannot be proved to not exist. I suppose that is my fault due to the way I worded my first post, so I will accept blame for that. I believe in ghosts for other reasons, but I didn't include them because I assumed that either other people have said most of them or they would be easy to infer.

My argument is not to convince you that I am correct, because I am aware of how difficult that would be. I am also aware of the fact that, in the eyes of the world, I am the one who needs to support my theory, because it is the newer and less accepted one. Unfortunately, I don't have the kind of proof that would win anyone over, so I have no leg to stand on.

When I said "stalemate," I meant that neither of us would be able to convince the other of our beliefs. I am a man of logic and reason. If you can prove to me that ghosts do not exist, I will gladly agree with you. Until that time, however, I will continue to support my opinion, albeit weakly.

 

[kouriichi]

Yes I do. Why? It's very simple.

Can you prove they don't exist?

It is not up to the skeptic to disprove any accusation. The proof of the accusation lies upon the accuser.

Actually, its up to both parties.
Its up to those who believe they exist to show or give reason to why they believe so, then the skeptic to disprove that evidence, or present evidence to the contrary. Then you rinse and repeat until no more evidence is given.

Example.
"God is real because the bible says so."

"The bible was written by man, not god."

"But god told them to write the bible."

"Says who? The word of the man who wrote it? Who could easily lie to hold his position? We dont even have the original bible, and its been changed thousands of times over the years, and translated through multiple languages."

 

[Lightning Delight]

Yes I do. Why? It's very simple.

Can you prove they don't exist?

It is not up to the skeptic to disprove any accusation. The proof of the accusation lies upon the accuser.

Semantics could turn that around on you very quickly, my friend. Who is to say that you are not the one accusing ghosts of not existing, and I am merely skeptical or your opinion? How do we decide which party is the accuser and which is the defender?

 

[Togs]

But for the mind to play tricks on you, you have to believe there can be something there to begin with right? You cant have a trick played on you, if you dont believe in the trick to begin with. You have to be paranoid that something is there, for your mind to believe it can truly be there.

Your explanation for everyone being tricked is basically, "Everyone either has an overactive imagination or....." When the truth is, many credible witnesses have come forward. People who live near bears all theyre life know what is, and what isnt a bear.
To dismiss every single persons testimony ever as "a trick played by the mind" is to say that we cant use them in criminal trials, because they could have been fooled, or tricked into thinking it was somebody, because they saw a picture of that person.

And the fact that there is no proof of ghosts doesnt prove they dont exist, same goes with bigfoot, nessy, and aliens. Were finding new species everyday. Ever species we thought were looooooong extinct. Coelacanth, Lord Howe, and Cuban solenodon were all thought to be completely gone off the face of the earth.
Whos to say Gigantapithecus is? ((giant ape that walked on 2 legs))

To dispute that something doesnt exist because of lack of evidence is to be closed minded xD We get new evidence every day. Just look at dark matter. We thought it wall as science fiction until we found out it made up the majority of the universe.

While yes, my belief is different ((and i cant stress that enough)), its not as far fetched as you'd think. Its an explanation for how they could exist.

You cant offer proof its wrong! So i must be mostly right! (basically what your saying)

A logical and rational person dont need proof to believe it exists. They use their logic and ration to find proof. ((either in favor, or to the contrary.))

Yup you really dont know qwhat your talking about, its not my intention to be rude but its true.

Mate find an explanation of the scientific method and on the precepts of logic, as showing you why your talking out your arse would take me all bloody day.