Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Do you believe in ghosts and other related phenomena?

12346

Posts

  • CervetusCervetus Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Couscous wrote: »
    A: Some religious people have seen visions.
    B: All religious people are idiots.
    C: Therefore anyone who has seen anything unexplainable by current science is an idiot.
    It is more like:
    A. Some religious people have seen visions.
    B. These visions contradict each other and all reflect the culture in which the person lives.
    C. If they were more than delusions, they would share more common characteristics than an authority figure appearing and confirming a person's beliefs.
    D. These visions are therefore probably nothing more than delusions shitloads of people have.
    E. ???
    F. PROFIT!

    Pretty much. There actually are cultures out there with no concept of ghosts, and as a result they don't see ghosts.

    The libertarian response to anything is, "Sure, that works fine in practice, but it doesn't fly in theory."
  • Shifty FisterShifty Fister Registered User
    edited April 2009
    Ghost314 wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    Ghost314 wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    oh my god guys you're right

    some scientists were wrong at some point so therefore ghosts

    it makes perfect sense!

    No, it goes like this:

    some religious people (or not, not all people who experience this stuff are religious) were wrong at some point so therefore NO ghosts or anything else
    actually, it's more like this

    everything we know about the way the world works indicates that if ghosts exist it would be an unbelievable uprooting of the science of the last 400 years. you know, the same science that gives us iphones and cars, pasteurization and medicine, and sent landers to the fucking moon, mars, venus, and titan

    so given that the evidence is so overwhelmingly against ghosts existing, we would need an incredibly clear example of ghosts in order to start believing there's something to them

    instead all we have is personal anecdotes that are never substantiated scientifically, told by people who often get a thrill from telling ghost stories and who have a vested interest in not thinking of themselves as delusional

    oh and let's not forget that part of the scientific enlightenment was finding out that our brains are laughably unreliable at being objective witnesses to what goes on around us

    your position is childish and unsophisticated, and i'm increasingly depressed that people like you make it through our scientific education in 2009

    Actually, I don't think it would change much of anything if the existence of "ghosts" or whatever you want to call them was proven. I think life would go on pretty much as it has, and I don't think it would be much more than a blip in scientific understanding.

    Why would it be such a big deal?

    Uh because it would violate or introduce new information that has not been predicted or even remotely expected? There's no way it would be a tiny blip.

  • ResRes __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2009
    Ghost314 wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    you really need to stop with the "scientists are fallible therefore ghosts"

    you really need to stop with the "people who have paranormal experiences" are delusional therefore no ghosts

    Why do I NEED to stop?

    Because your argument hinges on "scientists are fallible therefore ghosts," whereas no one is saying "people who have paranormal experiences are delusional therefore no ghosts," but in fact are saying "there are no ghosts, therefore people who think they have paranormal experiences are delusional" as a consequence of our argument that there are no ghosts due to the overwhelming amount of evidence that there are no ghosts.

    Oh, that and anecdotal evidence that you insist is our job to dig up.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Ghost314Ghost314 Registered User
    edited April 2009
    Cervetus wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    A: Some religious people have seen visions.
    B: All religious people are idiots.
    C: Therefore anyone who has seen anything unexplainable by current science is an idiot.
    It is more like:
    A. Some religious people have seen visions.
    B. These visions contradict each other and all reflect the culture in which the person lives.
    C. If they were more than delusions, they would share more common characteristics than an authority figure appearing and confirming a person's beliefs.
    D. These visions are therefore probably nothing more than delusions shitloads of people have.
    E. ???
    F. PROFIT!

    Pretty much. There actually are cultures out there with no concept of ghosts, and as a result they don't see ghosts.

    Really? Who?

    As for the cultures who have a concept of ghosts: Which came first, the concept of ghosts, or seeing ghosts? And if it's the former, where did the concept come from?

    I'm not being facetious. I'm genuinely curious.

    Life is a highway -- I want to ride it -- and comment on it ironically -- all night long.
  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Ghost314 wrote: »
    Actually, I don't think it would change much of anything if the existence of "ghosts" or whatever you want to call them was proven. I think life would go on pretty much as it has, and I don't think it would be much more than a blip in scientific understanding.

    Why would it be such a big deal?

    Would you like me to list the ways in which ghosts can't exist based on current scientific understanding? It first depends on what the fuck you mean by "ghosts." What does it even mean? It's almost impossible to define as defining it means putting it into sensible language and that's something no one seems to be able to do. But let's take the standard concept of some sort of spirit that continues on after one dies.

    This means there needs to be

    A) A supernatural realm

    B) dualism, and

    C) an afterlife

    None of these concepts have any reasonable definition, let alone evidence. They are logically contradictory and generally unsound scientifically.

    Evidence for any of them would be an earth-shattering event. It would uproot the entire scientific framework which has enabled us to do everything from cooking bacon in microwaves to playing COD4.

    The fact that you don't seem to grasp the importance of such a finding is telling. You really need a better education on the foundations of science.

    HOW DO YOU FUCK UP BAGELS. YOU BOIL THE WATER. PUT IN THE NOODLES
  • Ghost314Ghost314 Registered User
    edited April 2009
    Res wrote: »
    Ghost314 wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    you really need to stop with the "scientists are fallible therefore ghosts"

    you really need to stop with the "people who have paranormal experiences" are delusional therefore no ghosts

    Why do I NEED to stop?

    Because your argument hinges on "scientists are fallible therefore ghosts," whereas no one is saying "people who have paranormal experiences are delusional therefore no ghosts," but in fact are saying "there are no ghosts, therefore people who think they have paranormal experiences are delusional" as a consequence of our argument that there are no ghosts due to the overwhelming amount of evidence that there are no ghosts.

    Oh, that and anecdotal evidence that you insist is our job to dig up.

    "There are no ghosts" is not a scientific statement. It's a statement of faith.

    And as for my NEED to stop, check the thread title. I'm playing by the same rules as you.

    Life is a highway -- I want to ride it -- and comment on it ironically -- all night long.
  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Ghost314 wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    you really need to stop with the "scientists are fallible therefore ghosts"

    you really need to stop with the "people who have paranormal experiences" are delusional therefore no ghosts

    Why do I NEED to stop?

    http://www.bartleby.com/37/3/14.html
    David Hume wrote:
    The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), ‘that no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavors to establish; and even in that case there is a mutual destruction of arguments, and the superior only gives us an assurance suitable to that degree of force, which remains, after deducting the inferior.’ When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.

    HOW DO YOU FUCK UP BAGELS. YOU BOIL THE WATER. PUT IN THE NOODLES
  • Ghost314Ghost314 Registered User
    edited April 2009
    MikeMan wrote: »
    Ghost314 wrote: »
    Actually, I don't think it would change much of anything if the existence of "ghosts" or whatever you want to call them was proven. I think life would go on pretty much as it has, and I don't think it would be much more than a blip in scientific understanding.

    Why would it be such a big deal?

    Would you like me to list the ways in which ghosts can't exist based on current scientific understanding? It first depends on what the fuck you mean by "ghosts." What does it even mean? It's almost impossible to define as defining it means putting it into sensible language and that's something no one seems to be able to do. But let's take the standard concept of some sort of spirit that continues on after one dies.

    This means there needs to be

    A) A supernatural realm

    B) dualism, and

    C) an afterlife

    None of these concepts have any reasonable definition, let alone evidence. They are logically contradictory and generally unsound scientifically.

    Evidence for any of them would be an earth-shattering event. It would uproot the entire scientific framework which has enabled us to do everything from cooking bacon in microwaves to playing COD4.

    The fact that you don't seem to grasp the importance of such a finding is telling. You really need a better education on the foundations of science.

    Most of the people now alive, in fact most of the people who have ever lived, have believed in one or more of your A, B, and C. Granted, anecdotal evidence for the most part. But "anecdotal evidence" is too easy a whipping boy.

    Life is a highway -- I want to ride it -- and comment on it ironically -- all night long.
  • Ghost314Ghost314 Registered User
    edited April 2009
    MikeMan wrote: »
    Ghost314 wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    you really need to stop with the "scientists are fallible therefore ghosts"

    you really need to stop with the "people who have paranormal experiences" are delusional therefore no ghosts

    Why do I NEED to stop?

    http://www.bartleby.com/37/3/14.html
    David Hume wrote:
    The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), ‘that no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavors to establish; and even in that case there is a mutual destruction of arguments, and the superior only gives us an assurance suitable to that degree of force, which remains, after deducting the inferior.’ When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.

    Whoop de doo. Hume. "Miracles can't happen because miracles are a priori impossible." Yeah, there's a sound argument. You might want a different philosopher to underpin science. Radical skepticism like Hume's pretty much undermines scientific inquiry because all such skepticism operates from within a framework which must remain immune to the same skepticism, lest it implode when presented with any "paradigm-shifting" information. You might want to try Thomas Kuhn, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions."

    Life is a highway -- I want to ride it -- and comment on it ironically -- all night long.
  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Ghost314 wrote: »
    Most of the people now alive, in fact most of the people who have ever lived, have believed in one or more of your A, B, and C. Granted, anecdotal evidence for the most part. But "anecdotal evidence" is too easy a whipping boy.

    Most of the people who have ever lived died at 30 years old and thought they needed to slaughter innocent creatures to appease a sun god.

    Your point?

    How many cavemen figured out how to go to the moon?

    HOW DO YOU FUCK UP BAGELS. YOU BOIL THE WATER. PUT IN THE NOODLES
  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Ghost314 wrote: »

    Whoop de doo. Hume. "Miracles can't happen because miracles are a priori impossible." Yeah, there's a sound argument.
    Oh so you didn't read it. Alright.

    HOW DO YOU FUCK UP BAGELS. YOU BOIL THE WATER. PUT IN THE NOODLES
  • Vincent GraysonVincent Grayson Frederick, MDRegistered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Ghost314 wrote: »
    Cervetus wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    A: Some religious people have seen visions.
    B: All religious people are idiots.
    C: Therefore anyone who has seen anything unexplainable by current science is an idiot.
    It is more like:
    A. Some religious people have seen visions.
    B. These visions contradict each other and all reflect the culture in which the person lives.
    C. If they were more than delusions, they would share more common characteristics than an authority figure appearing and confirming a person's beliefs.
    D. These visions are therefore probably nothing more than delusions shitloads of people have.
    E. ???
    F. PROFIT!

    Pretty much. There actually are cultures out there with no concept of ghosts, and as a result they don't see ghosts.

    Really? Who?

    As for the cultures who have a concept of ghosts: Which came first, the concept of ghosts, or seeing ghosts? And if it's the former, where did the concept come from?

    I'm not being facetious. I'm genuinely curious.

    While not ghosts specifically, you could ask that of most anything people have ever come up with. Where did people come up with witches? Leprechauns? Dragons? Lovecraftian horrors lurking beyond the edges of perception? People have imaginations, see patterns where there are none, and have since the dawn of man. Coming up with an idea in no way suggests that those things actually exist, so even if we can't answer how people came up with ghosts in the first place (and I doubt that we can), that in no way suggests they are real.

  • L.E.O.L.E.O. Registered User
    edited April 2009
    i think ghosts are nothing more than a fear that we have towards the unknown factor of death, honestly i have never seen a ghost, some people say they have, my cousin says she talks to her dead father all the time, she says that i cant see them cause im not "ready" to see them, that alone sounds like some shit straight out of a fairy tale, but still this is the type of shit that really makes me believe they may exist, why would she lie about that? that's a pretty stupid lie.

    but honestly i dont want to see them, fuck that, ill die one day then ill see dead spirits and shit, for now im good.

  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    L.E.O. wrote: »
    i think ghosts are nothing more than a fear that we have towards the unknown factor of death, honestly i have never seen a ghost, some people say they have, my cousin says she talks to her dead father all the time, she says that i cant see them cause im not "ready" to see them, that alone sounds like some shit straight out of a fairy tale, but still this is the type of shit that really makes me believe they may exist, why would she lie about that? that's a pretty stupid lie.

    but honestly i dont want to see them, fuck that, ill die one day then ill see dead spirits and shit, for now im good.

    because she's not lying. she's misinterpreting something, or convincing herself (sound most likely, it's really easy to do), or or exaggerating, or just flat out delusional (which is very rare).

    people who are talking about supernatural experiences are very rarely actually flat-out lying. if they are, they often end up convincing themselves.

    Inquisitor wrote: »
    I fucking hate you Canadians.
  • ResRes __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2009
    Ghost314 wrote: »
    Most of the people now alive, in fact most of the people who have ever lived, have believed in one or more of your A, B, and C. Granted, anecdotal evidence for the most part. But "anecdotal evidence" is too easy a whipping boy.

    Most of them have believed in some kind of afterlife, too, what's your - oh, crap, I was going to make a strawman argument here, then I realized that the imagined, easily defeatable argument I was making up to put in your mouth was actually what you're saying.

    Let me try again. Just because your argument relies only on the single most inconsequential evidence that exists, just because your supporting evidence is as weak as evidence can possibly be and still be called evidence by any standard, doesn't suggest that it's right. Your argument can not actually be so wrong it has to be right.

    I did it again. I'm sorry, your position here is impossible to strawman. I feel like Colbert trying address Rush Limbaugh.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Ghost314Ghost314 Registered User
    edited April 2009
    Ghost314 wrote: »
    Cervetus wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    A: Some religious people have seen visions.
    B: All religious people are idiots.
    C: Therefore anyone who has seen anything unexplainable by current science is an idiot.
    It is more like:
    A. Some religious people have seen visions.
    B. These visions contradict each other and all reflect the culture in which the person lives.
    C. If they were more than delusions, they would share more common characteristics than an authority figure appearing and confirming a person's beliefs.
    D. These visions are therefore probably nothing more than delusions shitloads of people have.
    E. ???
    F. PROFIT!

    Pretty much. There actually are cultures out there with no concept of ghosts, and as a result they don't see ghosts.

    Really? Who?

    As for the cultures who have a concept of ghosts: Which came first, the concept of ghosts, or seeing ghosts? And if it's the former, where did the concept come from?

    I'm not being facetious. I'm genuinely curious.

    While not ghosts specifically, you could ask that of most anything people have ever come up with. Where did people come up with witches? Leprechauns? Dragons? Lovecraftian horrors lurking beyond the edges of perception? People have imaginations, see patterns where there are none, and have since the dawn of man. Coming up with an idea in no way suggests that those things actually exist, so even if we can't answer how people came up with ghosts in the first place (and I doubt that we can), that in no way suggests they are real.

    Well said. But I doubt most of those things were either complete fabrications or delusions. A better question would be "What, if anything, is the basis for this belief?" I think that's worthy of investigation. For ghosts or any of the others (Well, maybe not Lovecraftian horrors.)

    Life is a highway -- I want to ride it -- and comment on it ironically -- all night long.
  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Ghost314 wrote: »
    Well said. But I doubt most of those things were either complete fabrications or delusions. A better question would be "What, if anything, is the basis for this belief?" I think that's worthy of investigation. For ghosts or any of the others (Well, maybe not Lovecraftian horrors.)
    if only there were an entire field of study devoted to the origins and explanations of such feelings

    HOW DO YOU FUCK UP BAGELS. YOU BOIL THE WATER. PUT IN THE NOODLES
  • L.E.O.L.E.O. Registered User
    edited April 2009
    L.E.O. wrote: »
    i think ghosts are nothing more than a fear that we have towards the unknown factor of death, honestly i have never seen a ghost, some people say they have, my cousin says she talks to her dead father all the time, she says that i cant see them cause im not "ready" to see them, that alone sounds like some shit straight out of a fairy tale, but still this is the type of shit that really makes me believe they may exist, why would she lie about that? that's a pretty stupid lie.

    but honestly i dont want to see them, fuck that, ill die one day then ill see dead spirits and shit, for now im good.

    because she's not lying. she's misinterpreting something, or convincing herself (sound most likely, it's really easy to do), or or exaggerating, or just flat out delusional (which is very rare).

    people who are talking about supernatural experiences are very rarely actually flat-out lying. if they are, they often end up convincing themselves.
    yeah, i guess ghosts are some kind of a proof that there is an afterlife you know? so maybe that's why some people want to believe in them, so they convince themselves that somebody is talking inside there mind or that a shadow or a patch of light is actually a ghost.

  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Exactly - the human mind is astoundingly fallible, and the conviction people have that it is not is what gives rise to most of these claims.

  • Ghost314Ghost314 Registered User
    edited April 2009
    MikeMan wrote: »
    Ghost314 wrote: »
    Most of the people now alive, in fact most of the people who have ever lived, have believed in one or more of your A, B, and C. Granted, anecdotal evidence for the most part. But "anecdotal evidence" is too easy a whipping boy.

    Most of the people who have ever lived died at 30 years old and thought they needed to slaughter innocent creatures to appease a sun god.

    Your point?

    How many cavemen figured out how to go to the moon?

    You're right. Most of the people who have ever lived, in fact, are alive right now, were ignorant, deluded fools. How wonderful it is that you skeptic fundies have arisen to lead us all out of the darkness.

    This must be what it's like to argue with a fundamentalist evangelical. Everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot.

    Life is a highway -- I want to ride it -- and comment on it ironically -- all night long.
  • Ghost314Ghost314 Registered User
    edited April 2009
    Res wrote: »
    Ghost314 wrote: »
    Most of the people now alive, in fact most of the people who have ever lived, have believed in one or more of your A, B, and C. Granted, anecdotal evidence for the most part. But "anecdotal evidence" is too easy a whipping boy.

    Most of them have believed in some kind of afterlife, too, what's your - oh, crap, I was going to make a strawman argument here, then I realized that the imagined, easily defeatable argument I was making up to put in your mouth was actually what you're saying.

    Let me try again. Just because your argument relies only on the single most inconsequential evidence that exists, just because your supporting evidence is as weak as evidence can possibly be and still be called evidence by any standard, doesn't suggest that it's right. Your argument can not actually be so wrong it has to be right.

    I did it again. I'm sorry, your position here is impossible to strawman. I feel like Colbert trying address Rush Limbaugh.

    Me too. Sigh.

    Life is a highway -- I want to ride it -- and comment on it ironically -- all night long.
  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Ghost314 wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    Ghost314 wrote: »
    Most of the people now alive, in fact most of the people who have ever lived, have believed in one or more of your A, B, and C. Granted, anecdotal evidence for the most part. But "anecdotal evidence" is too easy a whipping boy.

    Most of the people who have ever lived died at 30 years old and thought they needed to slaughter innocent creatures to appease a sun god.

    Your point?

    How many cavemen figured out how to go to the moon?

    You're right. Most of the people who have ever lived, in fact, are alive right now, were ignorant, deluded fools. How wonderful it is that you skeptic fundies have arisen to lead us all out of the darkness.

    This must be what it's like to argue with a fundamentalist evangelical. Everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot.
    spare me your self righteous indignation

    i am merely asking that feelings and stories and experiences be substantiated and weighed against logic and scientific knowledge

    OH NOES I R TEH ELITIST!?!?!!?!?!?

    HOW DO YOU FUCK UP BAGELS. YOU BOIL THE WATER. PUT IN THE NOODLES
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2009
    There's some false history on this thread. 100 years ago, people were of the opinion that the structure of the universe was already almost totally known, but you need to pay attention to the almost. There were some very well known inconsistencies, all of them experimentally verifiable and reproducible. It was just that they were so unusual and minor that the consensus view was that they could be solved with modifications and addendums to the period model. They couldn't, but they still were well aware of problems. For ghosts, there is no contradictory data besides idiots who also insist that their brother Jedediah was probed by little green men.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • ResRes __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2009
    Ghost314 wrote: »
    Res wrote: »
    Ghost314 wrote: »
    Most of the people now alive, in fact most of the people who have ever lived, have believed in one or more of your A, B, and C. Granted, anecdotal evidence for the most part. But "anecdotal evidence" is too easy a whipping boy.

    Most of them have believed in some kind of afterlife, too, what's your - oh, crap, I was going to make a strawman argument here, then I realized that the imagined, easily defeatable argument I was making up to put in your mouth was actually what you're saying.

    Let me try again. Just because your argument relies only on the single most inconsequential evidence that exists, just because your supporting evidence is as weak as evidence can possibly be and still be called evidence by any standard, doesn't suggest that it's right. Your argument can not actually be so wrong it has to be right.

    I did it again. I'm sorry, your position here is impossible to strawman. I feel like Colbert trying address Rush Limbaugh.

    Me too. Sigh.

    Which brings us back to the fallibility of perception...

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Ghost314Ghost314 Registered User
    edited April 2009
    MikeMan wrote: »
    spare me your self righteous indignation

    LOL

    Life is a highway -- I want to ride it -- and comment on it ironically -- all night long.
  • L.E.O.L.E.O. Registered User
    edited April 2009
    lolz theres a ghost in this theradddedd!!!!!!!!!!

  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    hey a bunch of people thought hale-bopp had a spaceship behind it and they all killed themselves so they could fly away on the spaceship before the earth was wiped clean

    you "scientists" just dismiss it out of hand with your "logic"!

    here's a pro-tip: a bunch of people believing in something does not make it true

    HOW DO YOU FUCK UP BAGELS. YOU BOIL THE WATER. PUT IN THE NOODLES
  • Shifty FisterShifty Fister Registered User
    edited April 2009
    Argument from popularity and all that.

  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2009
    L.E.O. wrote: »
    lolz theres a ghost in this theradddedd!!!!!!!!!!

    The irony is so think I've come to believe he's a troll.

    Or maybe a ghost troll.

    Oh shit.

    Spoiler:
  • Ghost314Ghost314 Registered User
    edited April 2009
    MikeMan wrote: »
    hey a bunch of people thought hale-bopp had a spaceship behind it and they all killed themselves so they could fly away on the spaceship before the earth was wiped clean

    you "scientists" just dismiss it out of hand with your "logic"!

    here's a pro-tip: a bunch of people believing in something does not make it true

    Boy, you got that right. Like uniformitarianism, spontaneous generation, absolute frames of reference, theory of the four humours, the geocentric universe .... and all the other infallible scientific theories that it was considered delusional to question.

    "Paranormal" is just a word for anything that is currently at the fringe (or beyond) of current understanding. Paradigms will change. Knowledge will expand and change. And "ghosts" and the rest of it will in all likelihood have an explanation someday. But I don't know what it will be. And neither do you.

    Life is a highway -- I want to ride it -- and comment on it ironically -- all night long.
  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Ghost314 wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    hey a bunch of people thought hale-bopp had a spaceship behind it and they all killed themselves so they could fly away on the spaceship before the earth was wiped clean

    you "scientists" just dismiss it out of hand with your "logic"!

    here's a pro-tip: a bunch of people believing in something does not make it true

    Boy, you got that right. Like uniformitarianism, spontaneous generation, absolute frames of reference, theory of the four humours, the geocentric universe .... and all the other infallible scientific theories that it was considered delusional to question.

    "Paranormal" is just a word for anything that is currently at the fringe (or beyond) of current understanding. Paradigms will change. Knowledge will expand and change. And "ghosts" and the rest of it will in all likelihood have an explanation someday. But I don't know what it will be. And neither do you.

    they already have an explanation

    they have a perfectly valid and logical and scientific explanation

    you are ignoring this in favor of the one that gives you thrills you haven't felt since you were 5 years old

    HOW DO YOU FUCK UP BAGELS. YOU BOIL THE WATER. PUT IN THE NOODLES
  • L.E.O.L.E.O. Registered User
    edited April 2009
    MikeMan wrote: »
    Ghost314 wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    hey a bunch of people thought hale-bopp had a spaceship behind it and they all killed themselves so they could fly away on the spaceship before the earth was wiped clean

    you "scientists" just dismiss it out of hand with your "logic"!

    here's a pro-tip: a bunch of people believing in something does not make it true

    Boy, you got that right. Like uniformitarianism, spontaneous generation, absolute frames of reference, theory of the four humours, the geocentric universe .... and all the other infallible scientific theories that it was considered delusional to question.

    "Paranormal" is just a word for anything that is currently at the fringe (or beyond) of current understanding. Paradigms will change. Knowledge will expand and change. And "ghosts" and the rest of it will in all likelihood have an explanation someday. But I don't know what it will be. And neither do you.

    they already have an explanation

    they have a perfectly valid and logical and scientific explanation

    you are ignoring this in favor of the one that gives you thrills you haven't felt since you were 5 years old
    no, no, i think he means spaceghost, he exists he even has a show on tv, i know this for a fact.

  • CervetusCervetus Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Ghost314 wrote: »
    Cervetus wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    A: Some religious people have seen visions.
    B: All religious people are idiots.
    C: Therefore anyone who has seen anything unexplainable by current science is an idiot.
    It is more like:
    A. Some religious people have seen visions.
    B. These visions contradict each other and all reflect the culture in which the person lives.
    C. If they were more than delusions, they would share more common characteristics than an authority figure appearing and confirming a person's beliefs.
    D. These visions are therefore probably nothing more than delusions shitloads of people have.
    E. ???
    F. PROFIT!

    Pretty much. There actually are cultures out there with no concept of ghosts, and as a result they don't see ghosts.

    Really? Who?

    As for the cultures who have a concept of ghosts: Which came first, the concept of ghosts, or seeing ghosts? And if it's the former, where did the concept come from?

    I'm not being facetious. I'm genuinely curious.

    I'd have to dig up my old Anthropology course book, but in it was a story of a woman who tried telling Macbeth to a group in the African swamps who used stories to pass the time between seasons when the swamp was so flooded they couldn't do anything, but fell into a problem on Act I Scene I because they don't have any idea what a ghost would be.

    And I personally don't know for sure where the idea of ghosts would come from, but it would seem that if they were real they would be universal.
    Ghost314 wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    hey a bunch of people thought hale-bopp had a spaceship behind it and they all killed themselves so they could fly away on the spaceship before the earth was wiped clean

    you "scientists" just dismiss it out of hand with your "logic"!

    here's a pro-tip: a bunch of people believing in something does not make it true

    Boy, you got that right. Like uniformitarianism, spontaneous generation, absolute frames of reference, theory of the four humours, the geocentric universe .... and all the other infallible scientific theories that it was considered delusional to question.

    "Paranormal" is just a word for anything that is currently at the fringe (or beyond) of current understanding. Paradigms will change. Knowledge will expand and change. And "ghosts" and the rest of it will in all likelihood have an explanation someday. But I don't know what it will be. And neither do you.

    The ironic part is that ghosts are more like the beliefs in spontaneous generation and the four humours than their later explanations.

    The libertarian response to anything is, "Sure, that works fine in practice, but it doesn't fly in theory."
  • Ghost314Ghost314 Registered User
    edited April 2009
    Cervetus wrote: »
    Ghost314 wrote: »
    Cervetus wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    A: Some religious people have seen visions.
    B: All religious people are idiots.
    C: Therefore anyone who has seen anything unexplainable by current science is an idiot.
    It is more like:
    A. Some religious people have seen visions.
    B. These visions contradict each other and all reflect the culture in which the person lives.
    C. If they were more than delusions, they would share more common characteristics than an authority figure appearing and confirming a person's beliefs.
    D. These visions are therefore probably nothing more than delusions shitloads of people have.
    E. ???
    F. PROFIT!

    Pretty much. There actually are cultures out there with no concept of ghosts, and as a result they don't see ghosts.

    Really? Who?

    As for the cultures who have a concept of ghosts: Which came first, the concept of ghosts, or seeing ghosts? And if it's the former, where did the concept come from?

    I'm not being facetious. I'm genuinely curious.

    I'd have to dig up my old Anthropology course book, but in it was a story of a woman who tried telling Macbeth to a group in the African swamps who used stories to pass the time between seasons when the swamp was so flooded they couldn't do anything, but fell into a problem on Act I Scene I because they don't have any idea what a ghost would be.

    And I personally don't know for sure where the idea of ghosts would come from, but it would seem that if they were real they would be universal.
    Ghost314 wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    hey a bunch of people thought hale-bopp had a spaceship behind it and they all killed themselves so they could fly away on the spaceship before the earth was wiped clean

    you "scientists" just dismiss it out of hand with your "logic"!

    here's a pro-tip: a bunch of people believing in something does not make it true

    Boy, you got that right. Like uniformitarianism, spontaneous generation, absolute frames of reference, theory of the four humours, the geocentric universe .... and all the other infallible scientific theories that it was considered delusional to question.

    "Paranormal" is just a word for anything that is currently at the fringe (or beyond) of current understanding. Paradigms will change. Knowledge will expand and change. And "ghosts" and the rest of it will in all likelihood have an explanation someday. But I don't know what it will be. And neither do you.

    The ironic part is that ghosts are more like the beliefs in spontaneous generation and the four humours than their later explanations.

    Only if you assume (naively, I think) that ghosts HAVE TO be the spirits of the dead. If you try to look at the evidence objectively --- "What is this phenomenon that so many people experience?" --- then it may (or may not) turn out to be a paradigm buster. Who knows?

    The story from Africa is fascinating. One wonders what they would experience if they visited some place that was supposedly "haunted." Or if they watched a horror movie like "The Grudge."

    Life is a highway -- I want to ride it -- and comment on it ironically -- all night long.
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2009
    Ghost314 wrote: »
    Only if you assume (naively, I think) that ghosts HAVE TO be the spirits of the dead. If you try to look at the evidence objectively --- "What is this phenomenon that so many people experience?" --- then it may (or may not) turn out to be a paradigm buster. Who knows?

    Umm.

    If you do approach it that way, you get mundane, natural answers, not anything paranormal. That's the problem. That's why what you're saying is utterly absurd.

    Spoiler:
  • CervetusCervetus Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Ghost314 wrote: »
    The story from Africa is fascinating. One wonders what they would experience if they visited some place that was supposedly "haunted." Or if they watched a horror movie like "The Grudge."

    One does, but not the other.

    The libertarian response to anything is, "Sure, that works fine in practice, but it doesn't fly in theory."
  • L.E.O.L.E.O. Registered User
    edited April 2009
    Ghost314 wrote: »
    Only if you assume (naively, I think) that ghosts HAVE TO be the spirits of the dead. If you try to look at the evidence objectively --- "What is this phenomenon that so many people experience?" --- then it may (or may not) turn out to be a paradigm buster. Who knows?

    Umm.

    If you do approach it that way, you get mundane, natural answers, not anything paranormal. That's the problem. That's why what you're saying is utterly absurd.
    if it is naive to think that a ghost is a dead human, then a ghost is not a ghost, now you are killing the definition of the word 'ghost'.

  • ResRes __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2009
    L.E.O. wrote: »
    Ghost314 wrote: »
    Only if you assume (naively, I think) that ghosts HAVE TO be the spirits of the dead. If you try to look at the evidence objectively --- "What is this phenomenon that so many people experience?" --- then it may (or may not) turn out to be a paradigm buster. Who knows?

    Umm.

    If you do approach it that way, you get mundane, natural answers, not anything paranormal. That's the problem. That's why what you're saying is utterly absurd.
    if it is naive to think that a ghost is a dead human, then a ghost is not a ghost, now you are killing the definition of the word 'ghost'.

    Maybe he's right, maybe we're just working off a faulty definition of the word ghost.

    Maybe a ghost isn't a fictitious entity at all, but a phenomenon of sensory perception that we fail to explain!

    Hmmm...

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • L.E.O.L.E.O. Registered User
    edited April 2009
    Res wrote: »
    L.E.O. wrote: »
    Ghost314 wrote: »
    Only if you assume (naively, I think) that ghosts HAVE TO be the spirits of the dead. If you try to look at the evidence objectively --- "What is this phenomenon that so many people experience?" --- then it may (or may not) turn out to be a paradigm buster. Who knows?

    Umm.

    If you do approach it that way, you get mundane, natural answers, not anything paranormal. That's the problem. That's why what you're saying is utterly absurd.
    if it is naive to think that a ghost is a dead human, then a ghost is not a ghost, now you are killing the definition of the word 'ghost'.

    Maybe he's right, maybe we're just working off a faulty definition of the word ghost.

    Maybe a ghost isn't a fictitious entity at all, but a phenomenon of sensory perception that we fail to explain!

    Hmmm...
    indeed, check and mate.

  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2009
    L.E.O. wrote: »
    Ghost314 wrote: »
    Only if you assume (naively, I think) that ghosts HAVE TO be the spirits of the dead. If you try to look at the evidence objectively --- "What is this phenomenon that so many people experience?" --- then it may (or may not) turn out to be a paradigm buster. Who knows?

    Umm.

    If you do approach it that way, you get mundane, natural answers, not anything paranormal. That's the problem. That's why what you're saying is utterly absurd.
    if it is naive to think that a ghost is a dead human, then a ghost is not a ghost, now you are killing the definition of the word 'ghost'.

    Maybe it's the disembodied spirit of the definition of the word 'ghost'.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
Sign In or Register to comment.