Eek! A spooky ghost!

[PurePareidolia]

Not a blind believer, but until I see conclusive proof one way or the other, I will continue to believe that 'there are more things in Heaven and Hell than are dreamt of in your philosophy.'

That just really made me think of this [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB_htqDCP-s]

Gotta love Tim Minchin, but if I met that guy at a party I would be deliberately doing the hippy thing in order to wind up his pompous, close minded arse. I hate people like that just as much as I hate religious fundamentalists.

Where do you get closed minded from anything he says? I thought he goes out of his way to insist that "science adjusts it's views based on what's observed" and he'll spin on a dime if you prove him wrong, and that's the main difference between him and someone who bases what they believe on faith.

It's a criticism skeptics in general get a lot, despite constant assertions to the contrary

 

[Gadzooks]

I don't so much believe in ghosts. I do however believe in crazy people.

 

[lewism247]

Ughh, there's ectoplasm everywhere.

Yes I do believe. It's more of a spirit image but that's just me. That shadowy figure that creeps up from behind.

I am reminded of a certain South park scene.....

OP: I'm not sure, to be honest. Sometimes you do feel like there is something there but.....

I dunno

 

[Frequen-Z]

No. There are no ghosts. Go back to nursing your drinks.

I have this problem with my parents, they're very strong believers, watch a lot of TV based on it, go on ghost hunts, etc. It drives me mad to see them wasting their time on such bullshit. They do not believe in exorcisms, which is what really gets me, they don't mind believing that dead people can slam doors and smash cups or whatever, but as soon as a person is possessed, they don't think that's a feasible thing to believe?

It makes me incredibly angry on all fronts.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

Not a blind believer, but until I see conclusive proof one way or the other, I will continue to believe that 'there are more things in Heaven and Hell than are dreamt of in your philosophy.'

That just really made me think of this [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB_htqDCP-s]

Gotta love Tim Minchin, but if I met that guy at a party I would be deliberately doing the hippy thing in order to wind up his pompous, close minded arse. I hate people like that just as much as I hate religious fundamentalists.

Where do you get closed minded from anything he says? I thought he goes out of his way to insist that "science adjusts it's views based on what's observed" and he'll spin on a dime if you prove him wrong, and that's the main difference between him and someone who bases what they believe on faith.

It's a criticism skeptics in general get a lot, despite constant assertions to the contrary

It might just be my personal experience, but I have never met a hard science fundamentalist who really was that willing to change his views, even when presented with evidence that scientists have done it in the past (this includes my current housemates, who are pre-doctoral phsyicists, my old high school teachers, and some members of the university philosophy department last year).

They would insist that certain theories had already been proven, and thus there was no need to bother even looking beyond them. For some, this included gravity, evolution, and the big bang (though the physicists were not among the Big Bang group.) I even asked them, 'if you acknowledge that your field of science has flaws, why do you assume that some fields are absolutely certain?'

So while I would be fully prepared to admit that most scientists should be willing to adjust their views based on new information, I haven't seen evidence of this in real life.

 

[PurePareidolia]

It might just be my personal experience, but I have never met a hard science fundamentalist who really was that willing to change his views, even when presented with evidence that scientists have done it in the past (this includes my current housemates, who are pre-doctoral phsyicists, my old high school teachers, and some members of the university philosophy department last year).

They would insist that certain theories had already been proven, and thus there was no need to bother even looking beyond them. For some, this included gravity, evolution, and the big bang (though the physicists were not among the Big Bang group.) I even asked them, 'if you acknowledge that your field of science has flaws, why do you assume that some fields are absolutely certain?'

So while I would be fully prepared to admit that most scientists should be willing to adjust their views based on new information, I haven't seen evidence of this in real life.

Well what were you trying to convince them on? And what evidence did you use?
Some claims require more evidence than others and some evidence is worse than others. I really can't comment on this without specifics.

For example: Anecdotes and vague references to authority are not evidence, well designed experiments or clinical trials are. Pointing out anomalies and things you don't understand about a theory aren't usually deal breakers, but well documented cases of failed trials are worth a look.

If I might hazard a guess, I'd say the people you talked to were referring to what we already knew about such theories - each one of those has legitimate points of contention, but not really ones affecting the validity of the theory. For example, we don't know what dark matter is, but we know it exists from things like the shape of the Bullet cluster. just because we don't know what it is, doesn't mean it doesn't exist but that is a legitimate point of contention and a gap in knowledge.

Personally I adjust my views all the time - I used to be anti-nuclear energy, but I'm all for it now, similarly I used to give credence to psychics. Not anymore.

 

[Super_Nintendo_Chalmers]

Ughh, there's ectoplasm everywhere.

Nice reference.

OT: No, I don't, I like to think that there's a possibility of an afterlife, but I don't think that a spirit lives on to haunt or to stick around on earth.

 

[captainwolfos]

I've always believed in ghosts; mostly because my mother brought me up to believe in them, but also because we've got a ghost of a cat in our house.

I'll be clear and say that we do have two white pet cats, both of whom were asleep on the sofa in the living room when I saw the ghost run through the kitchen door and inbetween the washing machine and the dishwasher. The gap inbetween the two appliances is about an inch wide, and nowhere near big enough for even the smaller of the two cats to fit through (there is no way the other one would have been able to stick her head in there. Dot is a fatty, and probably too lazy to even try XD)

Spoiler: Please enjoy this picture of the fatty and the not-so-fatty cats :)

[http://s76.photobucket.com/albums/j36/The_Dark_Imp/?action=view&current=Picture004.jpg]

 

[vardazz]

I don't believe in ghosts, videos on youtube with ghosts content are fake.... Technology can create lot's of effects and make creepy videos so the person who's watching it believes that ghosts are real... check out the link and you will understand what I mean ---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skXos1JPngk

 

[The Spectator]

Nope, I don't believe in ghosts. Never seen or experienced paranormal activities. Though I always get scared shitless from those fake youtube videos. And I have a hard time imagining what these ghosts will consist of.

 

[The Heik]

Well scientists have proven that when someone finally dies that something ethereal physically leaves the human body, so ghosts could potentially exist.

Source?

well here's the original source

http://newdawnbooks.info/Reviews/DMT_The_Spirit_Molecule.html

and here's a clearer explanation of it IMO

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread495822/pg1

 

[flamingjimmy]

We don't know where we go after we die so ghosts may just be spirits returning from the afterlife for a few brief moments. Who knows?

I do.

In the absence of any evidence whatsoever that 'spirits' or an 'afterlife' exists it's pretty safe to say that ghosts don't either.

God dammit I really really wish that Occam's Razor was drilled into people at school, it really is a marvelous tool for understanding.

 

[Iron Criterion]

"Do you believe in ghosts?" "No." "Then that white hand on your shoulder must be my imagination."

OT: I would like to believe in ghosts, but chances are they do not exist because Earth is fucking boring with every mythical and supernatural creature seeming increasingly unlikely to have never existed.

 

[Fidelias]

I don't believe in ghosts, but I'm open to the idea. My opinion is that if there are ghosts, they'd have much more important things to do than to mess with mere mortals.

 

[Allan53]

I sort of do, but not in the "white sheet" style. I think that a person who lives in a place for a long period of time would tend to organise the house in such a way that fits them. In combination with the association in peoples heads, once that person dies, these two factors combine to create a psychological impression on people.

I'm not explaining this well, I know. Basically, they exist in peoples heads, but this doesn't make them any less "real".

 

[theSovietConnection]

Anyway, that's just my opinion, so what about all of yours? Are you a believer or not? For what reason? Do you think you've personally ever seen a ghost?

That avatar, combined with the thread title, gave me the best laugh I've had all day. You get a cookie for that.

Spoiler: Special ghost cookie

Anyways, to answer the question, yes I do believe, through my own experiences, as well as what I deem to be (key words here) compelling enough evidence.

We don't know where we go after we die so ghosts may just be spirits returning from the afterlife for a few brief moments. Who knows?

I do.

In the absence of any evidence whatsoever that 'spirits' or an 'afterlife' exists it's pretty safe to say that ghosts don't either.

God dammit I really really wish that Occam's Razor was drilled into people at school, it really is a marvelous tool for understanding.

You should be equally familiar with argumentum ad ignorantiam then, I presume?