Do you believe in ghosts?

[The Conquerer]

Originally Posted by Square Ninja

Do you believe in emotions? They're not tangible either.

lol. Of course I do. Though, you're nit-picking. I'll say I don't believe in the super natural (ghosts, Zombies, and what not). That sounds much better.

The undetermined noises that people hear that may causes fear are caused by something that we wouldn't find unexplainable in this world. That's all I'm saying.

[Fire's fan]

Originally Posted by Square Ninja

Do you believe in emotions? They're not tangible either.

Anger is tangable when you see a fist coming at you!(ever watch Lie to Me? Body language dude.)
:lol:

[_EX]

Originally Posted by ∞

We know that we don't know about it. What on Earth are you talking about?

Like when there is a flying saucer it is called an Unidentified Flying Object. You have identified it as that. It has a name and it has qualities that define whether some unknown thing is put into that group. Just like to be called a human you must have certain qualities. UFO refers to a grop of things. Therefore it is a title for that group. That group is accepted in science but just not understood. It could be that all those UFOs are just birds but until you prove that they will keep grouping into the unidentified group becuase of the common unknown part them.

No. Abormal means it's unusual or an anomoly, but nothing to do with outside forces. It's like if you flip a coin like a hundred times and they all lands heads. It's unusual that they'd all do that, given that it's always 50:50 chance, but it's not paranormal.

I said it was close. I didnt say it was exactly the same for the very reason I didnt want you to imply I think they are the same. I know they arnt the same but somethings could quite fittingly make the just from abnormal to paranormal.

Because there is nothing that can be tested or validated, and the thing is flawed right from the start. Consciousness arises through certain chemicals and cells in the brain and how they link up. When those links decay, it makes no sense that the consciousness somehow persists with no physical container or facilitator.

So because they cant test for them we should just think they dont exist?

Anything can be faked. But there is a difference between there being proof of a phenomena and an ability to reproduce and test, and there being nothing at all to actually test the grounds for the existence of nonsensical entites.

Yeah you're right. The information you are basing your argument on could all be complete lies. It is the same for everything, not just ghosts.

Because we have scientists whose jobs rely on them being unbiased and factual telling us the truth.

There are also ghost hunters whos job it is to shed light on the truth behind paranormal activity. Sure some are bias but some scientists are also bias so we can exclude these from the debate.

What possible advantage could there be for them to lie to us?

Maybe to see people like you valiantly defending them based on the false information they have told you. Maybe they are all watching this and laughing their heads off.

How the hell would I know what they are doing? Im just saying that you cant trust everything you are told.

Oh by the way the Earth is actually flat, they just use a wide-angle-lense effect to make it look circular from space.

I c wut u did thar.

[Phoenix]

Like when there is a flying saucer it is called an Unidentified Flying Object. You have identified it as that. It has a name and it has qualities that define whether some unknown thing is put into that group. Just like to be called a human you must have certain qualities. UFO refers to a grop of things. Therefore it is a title for that group. That group is accepted in science but just not understood. It could be that all those UFOs are just birds but until you prove that they will keep grouping into the unidentified group becuase of the common unknown part them.

Wait, the group is accepted in science? I thought, for some odd reason, no one had been able to provide any hard evidence.

I said it was close. I didnt say it was exactly the same for the very reason I didnt want you to imply I think they are the same. I know they arnt the same but somethings could quite fittingly make the just from abnormal to paranormal.

Back this up, please.

So because they cant test for them we should just think they dont exist?

Like invisible pink unicorns?

Yeah you're right. The information you are basing your argument on could all be complete lies. It is the same for everything, not just ghosts.

Except for everything else, there is also had evidence. People have been studying the paranormal for decades, and still have no hard proof?

Maybe to see people like you valiantly defending them based on the false information they have told you. Maybe they are all watching this and laughing their heads off.

Yeah, that is not how the world works. Again, any scientist would kill for the chance to change the paradigms of science, like Darwin and Einstein did.

[Square Ninja]

Originally Posted by Fire's fan

Anger is tangable when you see a fist coming at you!(ever watch Lie to Me? Body language dude.)
:lol:

No, at that point all you see is someone affected by anger. You never see anger itself.

[∞]

Originally Posted by _EX

Like when there is a flying saucer it is called an Unidentified Flying Object. You have identified it as that. It has a name and it has qualities that define whether some unknown thing is put into that group. Just like to be called a human you must have certain qualities. UFO refers to a grop of things. Therefore it is a title for that group. That group is accepted in science but just not understood. It could be that all those UFOs are just birds but until you prove that they will keep grouping into the unidentified group becuase of the common unknown part them.

And? We just make up a name for a group of things because we don't know what it is. That's not necessarily identifying it, just labelling it. Since when have UFO's been credibly accepted in scientific groups? Really, tell me where.

So because they cant test for them we should just think they dont exist?

There's a difference between testing, and in-depth analysis and hypothesising, before you say some stupid shit like we can't prove the existence of Dark Matter. And of course, like I've said before, the whole concept of a post-death sentient being makes no sense.

Yeah you're right. The information you are basing your argument on could all be complete lies. It is the same for everything, not just ghosts.

Except for more 'factual' things, we don't have nut-jobs and idiots mixed in with scientists, just scientists.

There are also ghost hunters whos job it is to shed light on the truth behind paranormal activity. Sure some are bias but some scientists are also bias so we can exclude these from the debate.

Because it's not like these people are going to get paid or come of better of for making use of their 'ability' and therefore have no reason to fake it, right?

Maybe to see people like you valiantly defending them based on the false information they have told you. Maybe they are all watching this and laughing their heads off.

How the hell would I know what they are doing? Im just saying that you cant trust everything you are told.

If ghosts definitely existed, there would be no good reason to hide it, in fact, people would probably feel better knowing that death is not necessarily the ultimate end. But because there has been no scientific evidence for, say, ghosts, we do not acknowledge them.

[▽]

Why would we dissmiss ghosts? Well, the primary reason is that it doesn't get us any further. if you see something weird and attribute that to a ghost then what? Then you just forget about it and go on with your life. Imagine if this would've happened with lightning, if it would still be attributed to a god. Then people would just go on, however, faraday, coulomb and tesla just to name a few delved deeper in it, looked for explanations and links. They were succesfull and without their achievements, we would live in a society lacking electricity, almost unimaginable. If there is no incentive to systematic and thorough research, there is no progress. Lack of progress is detrimental to society and the human species. So no, pointing to the paranormal is not of a single use to us. Also, this is why i see no use in pointing to spiritual/religious explanations.

[_EX]

Originally Posted by ∞

And? We just make up a name for a group of things because we don't know what it is. That's not necessarily identifying it, just labelling it. Since when have UFO's been credibly accepted in scientific groups? Really, tell me where.

When I say UFO I mean "unidentified flying object" not the things its associated with e.g. aliens.

They are commonly reffered to by members of the scientific community. That means that "unidentified fling objects" exist. I never said they think aliens exist. They know that things that are in the group of UFO exist. We dont know what they are but we know that the unknown objects exist. We can see them and they do not come under any other catagory.

The unknown objects are accepted as just that, but accepted nonethe less. Until we prove what they are they will be unknown. They may be reflected lights or hoaxes etc but until you prove it one way or another they are unknown. Scientist cant deny footage of UFOs exist. Whether there is something deeper to the video is another story.

There's a difference between testing, and in-depth analysis and hypothesising, before you say some stupid shit like we can't prove the existence of Dark Matter. And of course, like I've said before, the whole concept of a post-death sentient being makes no sense.

Makes no sense to you. Just because it doesnt make sense to you doesnt mean it doesnt make sense. Until you know everything about everything you wont know what actually does make sense.

Except for more 'factual' things, we don't have nut-jobs and idiots mixed in with scientists, just scientists.

Factual things you think are factual but could all actually be lies... yes, what of them?

Because it's not like these people are going to get paid or come of better of for making use of their 'ability' and therefore have no reason to fake it, right?

There are unbias groups which do conducts research on these topics who would have only as much to gain from this as any other person. People capture footage by accident alot of the time. Some times they ,themselves, dont realise what they have got until someone else figures it out.

If ghosts definitely existed, there would be no good reason to hide it, in fact, people would probably feel better knowing that death is not necessarily the ultimate end.

If one of the most common theories on ghosts is true there would be a reason. If they are demonic and are from satan then why would satan make sure everyone knows there is an afterlife? Then people would be motivated to make sure they dont go to hell. Satan's best weapon is secrecy and doubt.

But because there has been no scientific evidence for, say, ghosts, we do not acknowledge them.

Im assuminig you want something more than photos, videos, EVP recordings etc. What do you want ghost semen?

[∞]

Originally Posted by _EX

They are commonly reffered to by members of the scientific community. That means that "unidentified fling objects" exist. I never said they think aliens exist. They know that things that are in the group of UFO exist. We dont know what they are but we know that the unknown objects exist. We can see them and they do not come under any other catagory.

The unknown objects are accepted as just that, but accepted nonethe less. Until we prove what they are they will be unknown. They may be reflected lights or hoaxes etc but until you prove it one way or another they are unknown. Scientist cant deny footage of UFOs exist. Whether there is something deeper to the video is another story.

Except somewhere of about 70-90% (seriously, I'm not making that up, I read it in a NewScientist article) can be plausibly explained by our current knowledge of weather patterns and other vehicles or descending space debris.

Makes no sense to you. Just because it doesnt make sense to you doesnt mean it doesnt make sense. Until you know everything about everything you wont know what actually does make sense.

No. It just outright does not make sense.
Our ability to think and reason and remember comes from the way our brain is made. All the neurons we have and the ways in which they all link up. It makes absolutely no sense that is those neurons were to decay (ie; the person dies), thus also eliminating the links, that that sentience could continue without not only the neurons, but not even a physical container/facilitator. If you can make that process sensibly plausible to me, I will believe you in that ghosts exist.

Factual things you think are factual but could all actually be lies... yes, what of them?

Oh come the fuck on. Seriously. Stop this immature charade. You can believe in ghosts if you want to, but you don't dare question the scientists who have helped our world so much and whose reputation and in some cases even lives rely on them telling the truth. There is absolutely no advantage, as I said before, to cover up the existence of ghosts. The reason scientists do not speak of them is because they've found no testable evidence to prove their existence.

There are unbias groups which do conducts research on these topics who would have only as much to gain from this as any other person. People capture footage by accident alot of the time. Some times they ,themselves, dont realise what they have got until someone else figures it out.

I still doubt there are that many credible agencies out there who do such 'research', but okay.

If one of the most common theories on ghosts is true there would be a reason. If they are demonic and are from satan then why would satan make sure everyone knows there is an afterlife? Then people would be motivated to make sure they dont go to hell. Satan's best weapon is secrecy and doubt.

You just contradicted yourself there. That's where the advantage lies. If people know of an afterlife and that doing bad things will send them to hell, most people will do what they can to avoid going to hell, thereby the advantage of knowledge of ghosts is realised.

Im assuminig you want something more than photos, videos, EVP recordings etc. What do you want ghost semen?

I want a ghost to appear before a scientist who then gives evidence of who they were, that they are sentient, and that they are not a false projection of some kind or a misinterpretation. In fact, that, and before multiple scientists.

[_EX]

Originally Posted by ∞

Except somewhere of about 70-90% (seriously, I'm not making that up, I read it in a NewScientist article) can be plausibly explained by our current knowledge of weather patterns and other vehicles or descending space debris.

So what happens to the 10-30% who are unknown. Do we just round up the number to the nearest 100 and ignore them?
Take you 70-90% , that leaves the unidentified group with less members. They are still a group.

No. It just outright does not make sense.
Our ability to think and reason and remember comes from the way our brain is made. All the neurons we have and the ways in which they all link up. It makes absolutely no sense that is those neurons were to decay (ie; the person dies), thus also eliminating the links, that that sentience could continue without not only the neurons, but not even a physical container/facilitator. If you can make that process sensibly plausible to me, I will believe you in that ghosts exist.

One of the many theories:
Ghosts are spiritual entities. Not regular organisms that science can verify. They belong to a completely seperate type of life.

Oh come the fuck on. Seriously. Stop this immature charade. You can believe in ghosts if you want to, but you don't dare question the scientists who have helped our world so much and whose reputation and in some cases even lives rely on them telling the truth.

So pretty much just be bias and give all the power to the scientist to dictate what is real even if they are wrong? You should have equal suspicion.
Fantasy has made a pretty big and progressive impact on improvement of life. Cell phones were based of Star trek, various medicines were based of fictional media ideas ,etc. Fantasy has an impact on science.

There is absolutely no advantage, as I said before, to cover up the existence of ghosts. The reason scientists do not speak of them is because they've found no testable evidence to prove their existence.

Oh and what is the advantage of those who believe in ghosts to make them up?

You just contradicted yourself there. That's where the advantage lies. If people know of an afterlife and that doing bad things will send them to hell, most people will do what they can to avoid going to hell, thereby the advantage of knowledge of ghosts is realised.

How did I contradict myself? Your explanation was pretty much just repeating what I said. I know there are many people who detest the idea of Heaven and hell and still proclaim that ghosts exist. What do they have to gain?
Why would those who believe in Heaven want to trick people into beliving their beliefs anyway? That goes against what they know they are supposed to do to go to Heaven.

I want a ghost to appear before a scientist who then gives evidence of who they were, that they are sentient, and that they are not a false projection of some kind or a misinterpretation. In fact, that, and before multiple scientists.

Are you saying you want a scientist to see a ghost or get blood sample? I would say there are many in the scientific community who have seen them. They are probably not a very respected part of that community now because of that event, however.

[∞]

Originally Posted by _EX

So what happens to the 10-30% who are unknown. Do we just round up the number to the nearest 100 and ignore them?
Take you 70-90% , that leaves the unidentified group with less members. They are still a group.

Centuries ago, a lot was unexplainable and left up to paranormal or supernatural causes. Now, we know so much more about the world, and thus a lot of those things that were accepted as explanations were proven wrong by observation and analysis. What is there to say that the 'paranormal' is simply another natural thing that humans have yet to comprehend and so some of them attribute it to non-natural causes.

One of the many theories:
Ghosts are spiritual entities. Not regular organisms that science can verify. They belong to a completely seperate type of life.

Are you now talking about post-death sentience, or just random spirits? They exhibit none of the signs of any kind of life that must exhibit. It doesn't need to feed, it doesn't need to sleep, it doesn't reproduce, it doesn't excrete, it doesn't need sunlight or heat to survive. Such a being goes against everything known about life, at least some of these qualities must be shared by any 'living' thing in the universe.

So pretty much just be bias and give all the power to the scientist to dictate what is real even if they are wrong? You should have equal suspicion.

What the hell? Scientists strive for the truth and knowledge. Even if they don't like it, they are obliged and need to relay the truth.

Fantasy has made a pretty big and progressive impact on improvement of life. Cell phones were based of Star trek, various medicines were based of fictional media ideas ,etc. Fantasy has an impact on science.

So because a number of people have believed in ghosts, science is going to make ghosts exist? What are you trying to say with this point? People aren't going to bother to make ghosts, even if that's possible, unless it's for military or reconnaissance reasons.

Oh and what is the advantage of those who believe in ghosts to make them up?

Care to rephrase that? Those that make up that ghosts exist can get a buck or attention out of pretending that they do and preaching that they can be found and put to rest or whatever else.

How did I contradict myself? Your explanation was pretty much just repeating what I said. I know there are many people who detest the idea of Heaven and hell and still proclaim that ghosts exist. What do they have to gain?
Why would those who believe in Heaven want to trick people into beliving their beliefs anyway? That goes against what they know they are supposed to do to go to Heaven.

You do realise that any idea of Heaven and Hell exists so as to put people in a state of fear so that they don't do bad shit, right? And the better they do, the more of a chance they have to go to Heaven? Most religions have conversion as some kind of ticket that increases their chances of getting into 'Heaven'. That's their incentive.

Are you saying you want a scientist to see a ghost or get blood sample? I would say there are many in the scientific community who have seen them. They are probably not a very respected part of that community now because of that event, however.

Do you have proof or a source of these 'scientists' who've 'seen' ghosts? I would imagine the person to be alone at the time, thereby putting his statements under scrutiny because no-one else 'saw' the 'ghost/s'.

[_EX]

Originally Posted by ∞

Centuries ago, a lot was unexplainable and left up to paranormal or supernatural causes. Now, we know so much more about the world, and thus a lot of those things that were accepted as explanations were proven wrong by observation and analysis. What is there to say that the 'paranormal' is simply another natural thing that humans have yet to comprehend and so some of them attribute it to non-natural causes.

Yeah I agree. Paranormal is just a temporary term until it is explained. But that doesnt mean ghosts cant be real it just means that if we understand them they may not be called paranormal activity any longer.

Are you now talking about post-death sentience, or just random spirits? They exhibit none of the signs of any kind of life that must exhibit. It doesn't need to feed, it doesn't need to sleep, it doesn't reproduce, it doesn't excrete, it doesn't need sunlight or heat to survive. Such a being goes against everything known about life, at least some of these qualities must be shared by any 'living' thing in the universe.

A virus can do some life processes and imitate life without neccessarily being life (from what I know of viruses) Maybe ghost arnt life but just something like that. I dont know what they are exactly.

What the hell? Scientists strive for the truth and knowledge. Even if they don't like it, they are obliged and need to relay the truth.

That may be true but they dont always do what they are expected to. That scientist who supposedly discovered the link between high colesterol intake and heart problems presented his research to the community and was praised for having found the cause for many problems. Except for the fact that in his presentation he ignored all the evidence that went against his hypothesis (which I think even out weighed the supporting evidence). He didnt want his reseach to have been without a breakthrough so he lied. It happens. Scientists arnt some elite core of people who are incapable of doing wrong.

So because a number of people have believed in ghosts, science is going to make ghosts exist? What are you trying to say with this point? People aren't going to bother to make ghosts, even if that's possible, unless it's for military or reconnaissance reasons.

I am trying to say that science is as perfect and independant as you make it out to be.

Care to rephrase that? Those that make up that ghosts exist can get a buck or attention out of pretending that they do and preaching that they can be found and put to rest or whatever else.

You do know that there is an ever growing supply of evidence to support the idea of ghosts even though very little interest goes into them. Its not like AFV where if you have the best video you win $50,000. People get criticised for posting these videos, loose credibility etc.

You do realise that any idea of Heaven and Hell exists so as to put people in a state of fear so that they don't do bad shit, right? And the better they do, the more of a chance they have to go to Heaven? Most religions have conversion as some kind of ticket that increases their chances of getting into 'Heaven'. That's their incentive.

Are you to say that no athiest believes in ghosts?

Do you have proof or a source of these 'scientists' who've 'seen' ghosts? I would imagine the person to be alone at the time, thereby putting his statements under scrutiny because no-one else 'saw' the 'ghost/s'.

Look what I googled.... Russian Scientist Invents Camera To Take Ghost Photos - ForumGarden

It may not be a face in a mirror but some reports of ghosts have been of just objects replaying past activities, such in this case.

[∞]

Originally Posted by _EX

A virus can do some life processes and imitate life without neccessarily being life (from what I know of viruses) Maybe ghost arnt life but just something like that. I dont know what they are exactly.

It needs resources. It reproduces. Some of the qualities of a living thing.

That may be true but they dont always do what they are expected to. That scientist who supposedly discovered the link between high colesterol intake and heart problems presented his research to the community and was praised for having found the cause for many problems. Except for the fact that in his presentation he ignored all the evidence that went against his hypothesis (which I think even out weighed the supporting evidence). He didnt want his reseach to have been without a breakthrough so he lied. It happens. Scientists arnt some elite core of people who are incapable of doing wrong.

That's obviously the example of a bad scientist. Most scientists will look at all the facts they have with them and make the best decision or hypothesis based on all of the facts.

I am trying to say that science is as perfect and independant as you make it out to be.

Why thank you.
But seriously, it's a tool to knowledge and explanations. So far, it's done a hell of a lot better than any other alternative.

You do know that there is an ever growing supply of evidence to support the idea of ghosts even though very little interest goes into them. Its not like AFV where if you have the best video you win $50,000. People get criticised for posting these videos, loose credibility etc.

They lose credibility because scientifically speaking the idea is very unlikely if not absurd.

Are you to say that no athiest believes in ghosts?

Did I say that? Nope.

Look what I googled.... Russian Scientist Invents Camera To Take Ghost Photos - ForumGarden

It may not be a face in a mirror but some reports of ghosts have been of just objects replaying past activities, such in this case.

Thank you for providing something, however, the concept itself still seems iffy to me.

[_EX]

Originally Posted by ∞

It needs resources. It reproduces. Some of the qualities of a living thing.

But, last time I checked, you need all MRS C GREN to be considered life. Viruses do not do this.

That's obviously the example of a bad scientist. Most scientists will look at all the facts they have with them and make the best decision or hypothesis based on all of the facts.

Just proves that they arnt all as much of a deity as you make them sound.

They lose credibility because scientifically speaking the idea is very unlikely if not absurd.

Whcich would only support the idea that they arnt in it for the benifits of being called absurd.

Did I say that? Nope.

Did I say that you did? Nope.
But you were saying how Heaven and hell play a part in this trickery. So I asked what if you take out the religious oriantation aspect out of sightings? The obviously still go on. Which would suggest that people arnt trying to convert others by this method.

Thank you for providing something, however, the concept itself still seems iffy to me.

You are quite welcome.

Boy arnt you glad that I brought this thread back to life?

[Phoenix]

Just proves that they arnt all as much of a deity as you make them sound.

What? His point is that the scientific method has given us a hell of a lot more knowledge than your method of "LOOK, IT'S A GHOST".

Did I say that you did? Nope.

Don't be disingenuous, you know you that's what you implied.

But you were saying how Heaven and hell play a part in this trickery. So I asked what if you take out the religious oriantation aspect out of sightings? The obviously still go on. Which would suggest that people arnt trying to convert others by this method.

He never said they did; you're the one that brought Satan up. The concept of life after death (i.e. fear of death) transcends Christianity and other religions.