I see (feel, smell, sense, etc.) dead people... (1 Viewer)

[werdnoynek]

Back in 1977 my best friend and his wife stayed at an isolated Colorado hotel in the middle of winter where he was finishing a writing project. His wife took care of the hotel. During the stay their son Danny started seeing visions of the hotel's dark past using a telepathic gift he had from the time he was a toddler. Anyway the isolation of this place started to drive my friend mad. A ghost he had befriended convinced him to correct his family and he set off to kill his wife and child.

wow, nice story brah - this would make a great movie... move along

 

[sjacksonfan]

Something very strange happened last week at my house....

Your wife honestly believes this is some kind of ghostly encounter? Wat? Really? Really? Guys, there's no such thing as ghosts or "spirits". Spirit is a made up concept.

prove that there isn't ghosts or spirits... wise guy.

No problem. Take a look around. See any? Has there ever been a proven case in the history of mankind? No? There you go.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Something very strange happened last week at my house....

Your wife honestly believes this is some kind of ghostly encounter? Wat? Really? Really? Guys, there's no such thing as ghosts or "spirits". Spirit is a made up concept.

prove that there isn't ghosts or spirits... wise guy.

No problem. Take a look around. See any? Has there ever been a proven case in the history of mankind? No? There you go.

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" ~ Douglas Adams

 

[werdnoynek]

Something very strange happened last week at my house....

Your wife honestly believes this is some kind of ghostly encounter? Wat? Really? Really? Guys, there's no such thing as ghosts or "spirits". Spirit is a made up concept.

prove that there isn't ghosts or spirits... wise guy.

No problem. Take a look around. See any? Has there ever been a proven case in the history of mankind? No? There you go.

YOU haven't seen or felt them, however that doesn't mean they don't exist... don't confuse ignorance with knowledge. your same argument is used to dispute God and religions... however, there's no right or wrong in these arguments because there's no way (yet?) to prove OR deny the existence of spirits/ghosts, just as there's no way (yet?) to prove OR deny the existence of God.

for you to be so certain that there's no such thing as a spirit or ghost is just silly, because there's no such thing as certainty in something that cannot be proven.

i've never seen a ghost, but i don't dismiss people as crazy or schizophrenic because they have or think they have. i suggest you do the same - if you don't that's fine too. maybe someday you'll be the ghost who doesn't know they're dead yet because [in your dead mind] there's no such thing as ghosts...

 

[Osaurus]

This thread has potential again....creepy....creepy...potential.

 

[werdnoynek]

This thread has potential again....creepy....creepy...potential.

 

[datonn]

No problem. Take a look around. See any? Has there ever been a proven case in the history of mankind? No? There you go.

proven

Main Entry: prove

Pronunciation: \ˈprüv\

Function: verb

Inflected Form(s): proved; proved or prov·en \ˈprü-vən, British also ˈprō-\; prov·ing \ˈprü-viŋ\

Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French prover, pruver, from Latin probare to test, prove, from probus good, honest, from pro- for, in favor + -bus (akin to Old English bēon to be) — more at pro-, be

Date: 13th century

transitive verb

1 archaic : to learn or find out by experience

2 a : to test the truth, validity, or genuineness of <the exception proves the rule> <prove a will at probate> b : to test the worth or quality of; specifically : to compare against a standard —sometimes used with up or out c : to check the correctness of (as an arithmetic result)

3 a : to establish the existence, truth, or validity of (as by evidence or logic) <prove a theorem> <the charges were never proved in court> b : to demonstrate as having a particular quality or worth <the vaccine has been proven effective after years of tests> <proved herself a great actress>

4 : to show (oneself) to be worthy or capable <eager to prove myself in the new job>

intransitive verb

: to turn out especially after trial or test <the new drug proved effective>

— prov·able \ˈprü-və-bəl\ adjective

— prov·able·ness noun

— prov·ably \-blē\ adverb

— prov·er \ˈprü-vər\ noun

usage The past participle proven, originally the past participle of preve, a Middle English variant of prove that survived in Scotland, has gradually worked its way into standard English over the past three and a half centuries. It seems to have first become established in legal use and to have come only slowly into literary use. Tennyson was one of its earliest frequent users, probably for metrical reasons. It was disapproved by 19th century grammarians, one of whom included it in a list of “words that are not words.” Surveys made some 50 or 60 years ago indicated that proved was about four times as frequent as proven. But our evidence from the last 30 or 35 years shows this no longer to be the case. As a past participle proven is now about as frequent as proved in all contexts. As an attributive adjective <proved or proven gas reserves> proven is much more common than proved.

A bit off-topic, but proving something beyond a shadow of a doubt is tougher than one might think. Heck, how long has it been since scientists "proved" that an asteroid strike caused the end of the dinosaurs' rule on Earth and began the reign of mammals? How long has it been since human beings have accepted an Earth that orbits the Sun (instead of the Sun orbiting Earth)? How long have scientists understood the mechanics of volcanoes or earthquakes (even in part)?What if Stephen Hawking (theory of everything) and others are right, string theory is proven correct, and we are shown to exist in nine (or more) dimensions...of which only three are detectable by our human senses (or at least the senses that we understand)? What if they prove that at least six other dimensions co-exist with us that we cannot see, touch, taste, smell or hear?!

"Proving" something is way, WAY more difficult than people make it out to be. FWIW.

 

[sjacksonfan]

No problem. Take a look around. See any? Has there ever been a proven case in the history of mankind? No? There you go.

proven

Main Entry: prove

Pronunciation: \ˈprüv\

Function: verb

Inflected Form(s): proved; proved or prov·en \ˈprü-vən, British also ˈprō-\; prov·ing \ˈprü-viŋ\

Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French prover, pruver, from Latin probare to test, prove, from probus good, honest, from pro- for, in favor + -bus (akin to Old English bēon to be) — more at pro-, be

Date: 13th century

transitive verb

1 archaic : to learn or find out by experience

2 a : to test the truth, validity, or genuineness of <the exception proves the rule> <prove a will at probate> b : to test the worth or quality of; specifically : to compare against a standard —sometimes used with up or out c : to check the correctness of (as an arithmetic result)

3 a : to establish the existence, truth, or validity of (as by evidence or logic) <prove a theorem> <the charges were never proved in court> b : to demonstrate as having a particular quality or worth <the vaccine has been proven effective after years of tests> <proved herself a great actress>

4 : to show (oneself) to be worthy or capable <eager to prove myself in the new job>

intransitive verb

: to turn out especially after trial or test <the new drug proved effective>

— prov·able \ˈprü-və-bəl\ adjective

— prov·able·ness noun

— prov·ably \-blē\ adverb

— prov·er \ˈprü-vər\ noun

usage The past participle proven, originally the past participle of preve, a Middle English variant of prove that survived in Scotland, has gradually worked its way into standard English over the past three and a half centuries. It seems to have first become established in legal use and to have come only slowly into literary use. Tennyson was one of its earliest frequent users, probably for metrical reasons. It was disapproved by 19th century grammarians, one of whom included it in a list of “words that are not words.” Surveys made some 50 or 60 years ago indicated that proved was about four times as frequent as proven. But our evidence from the last 30 or 35 years shows this no longer to be the case. As a past participle proven is now about as frequent as proved in all contexts. As an attributive adjective <proved or proven gas reserves> proven is much more common than proved.

A bit off-topic, but proving something beyond a shadow of a doubt is tougher than one might think. Heck, how long has it been since scientists "proved" that an asteroid strike caused the end of the dinosaurs' rule on Earth and began the reign of mammals? How long has it been since human beings have accepted an Earth that orbits the Sun (instead of the Sun orbiting Earth)? How long have scientists understood the mechanics of volcanoes or earthquakes (even in part)?What if Stephen Hawking and others are right, string theory is proven correct, and we are shown to exist in nine (or more) dimensions...of which only three are detectable by our human senses (or at least the senses that we understand)? What if they prove that at least six other dimensions co-exist with us that we cannot see, touch, taste, smell or hear?!

"Proving" something is way, WAY more difficult than people make it out to be. FWIW.

You can make the same argument about anything. The floorboards in your house creak and you instantly believe the some long dead gold miner is doing the samba in your attic. I'm not saying you're lying or crazy. Some people are just wired to process information differently. There are no ghosts. You're not being haunted.

 

[sjacksonfan]

Something very strange happened last week at my house....

Your wife honestly believes this is some kind of ghostly encounter? Wat? Really? Really? Guys, there's no such thing as ghosts or "spirits". Spirit is a made up concept.

prove that there isn't ghosts or spirits... wise guy.

No problem. Take a look around. See any? Has there ever been a proven case in the history of mankind? No? There you go.

YOU haven't seen or felt them, however that doesn't mean they don't exist... don't confuse ignorance with knowledge. your same argument is used to dispute God and religions... however, there's no right or wrong in these arguments because there's no way (yet?) to prove OR deny the existence of spirits/ghosts, just as there's no way (yet?) to prove OR deny the existence of God.

for you to be so certain that there's no such thing as a spirit or ghost is just silly, because there's no such thing as certainty in something that cannot be proven.

i've never seen a ghost, but i don't dismiss people as crazy or schizophrenic because they have or think they have. i suggest you do the same - if you don't that's fine too. maybe someday you'll be the ghost who doesn't know they're dead yet because [in your dead mind] there's no such thing as ghosts...

 

[datonn]

You can make the same argument about anything. The floorboards in your house creak and you instantly believe the some long dead gold miner is doing the samba in your attic. I'm not saying you're lying or crazy. Some people are just wired to process information differently. There are no ghosts. You're not being haunted.

On the bolded statement above, that's what makes it SO hard. People who are afraid of the dark. People who watch a scary movie and then their imaginations take over. Etc. Etc. Those experiences (creaking floorboards, banging radiators, et al) are not what a lot of people over the age of 18 are talking about. You can reduce everyone's experiences to those experiences because it's a lot easier putting every one and every experience in a neat, clean box. I just wish people like you could have an experience that doesn't fit inside that box...and days of rationalizations and "it must have beens..." don't fit the experience.90+ percent of experiences people think they have are bunk. Over-active imaginations. What interests me, however, are those <10% of experiences that are way, WAY tougher to try and explain away.

 

[werdnoynek]

No problem. Take a look around. See any? Has there ever been a proven case in the history of mankind? No? There you go.

proven

Main Entry: prove

Pronunciation: \ˈprüv\

Function: verb

Inflected Form(s): proved; proved or prov·en \ˈprü-vən, British also ˈprō-\; prov·ing \ˈprü-viŋ\

Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French prover, pruver, from Latin probare to test, prove, from probus good, honest, from pro- for, in favor + -bus (akin to Old English bēon to be) — more at pro-, be

Date: 13th century

transitive verb

1 archaic : to learn or find out by experience

2 a : to test the truth, validity, or genuineness of <the exception proves the rule> <prove a will at probate> b : to test the worth or quality of; specifically : to compare against a standard —sometimes used with up or out c : to check the correctness of (as an arithmetic result)

3 a : to establish the existence, truth, or validity of (as by evidence or logic) <prove a theorem> <the charges were never proved in court> b : to demonstrate as having a particular quality or worth <the vaccine has been proven effective after years of tests> <proved herself a great actress>

4 : to show (oneself) to be worthy or capable <eager to prove myself in the new job>

intransitive verb

: to turn out especially after trial or test <the new drug proved effective>

— prov·able \ˈprü-və-bəl\ adjective

— prov·able·ness noun

— prov·ably \-blē\ adverb

— prov·er \ˈprü-vər\ noun

usage The past participle proven, originally the past participle of preve, a Middle English variant of prove that survived in Scotland, has gradually worked its way into standard English over the past three and a half centuries. It seems to have first become established in legal use and to have come only slowly into literary use. Tennyson was one of its earliest frequent users, probably for metrical reasons. It was disapproved by 19th century grammarians, one of whom included it in a list of “words that are not words.” Surveys made some 50 or 60 years ago indicated that proved was about four times as frequent as proven. But our evidence from the last 30 or 35 years shows this no longer to be the case. As a past participle proven is now about as frequent as proved in all contexts. As an attributive adjective <proved or proven gas reserves> proven is much more common than proved.

A bit off-topic, but proving something beyond a shadow of a doubt is tougher than one might think. Heck, how long has it been since scientists "proved" that an asteroid strike caused the end of the dinosaurs' rule on Earth and began the reign of mammals? How long has it been since human beings have accepted an Earth that orbits the Sun (instead of the Sun orbiting Earth)? How long have scientists understood the mechanics of volcanoes or earthquakes (even in part)?What if Stephen Hawking and others are right, string theory is proven correct, and we are shown to exist in nine (or more) dimensions...of which only three are detectable by our human senses (or at least the senses that we understand)? What if they prove that at least six other dimensions co-exist with us that we cannot see, touch, taste, smell or hear?!

"Proving" something is way, WAY more difficult than people make it out to be. FWIW.

agreed. we may not even have the technology to prove their existence one way or the other at this time. in the same boat, there's no way to prove they don’t exist. it's like the Coelacanth... a ancient fish that was believed to be extinct and was found in the 30's... or any other species of animals that are being discovered on a daily basis in the rain forests or oceans. people are so certain they don't exist until, one day, they're discovered or seen.

it just bothers me that people are so certain that something doesn't exist and it cannot be proven one way or another. i understand why they are saying it or may feel that way, but it's very hypocritical for them to criticize one persons side of an argument when they cannot even prove their own side.

 

[Radical Larry]

No problem. Take a look around. See any? Has there ever been a proven case in the history of mankind? No? There you go.

proven

Main Entry: prove

Pronunciation: \ˈprüv\

Function: verb

Inflected Form(s): proved; proved or prov·en \ˈprü-vən, British also ˈprō-\; prov·ing \ˈprü-viŋ\

Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French prover, pruver, from Latin probare to test, prove, from probus good, honest, from pro- for, in favor + -bus (akin to Old English bēon to be) — more at pro-, be

Date: 13th century

transitive verb

1 archaic : to learn or find out by experience

2 a : to test the truth, validity, or genuineness of <the exception proves the rule> <prove a will at probate> b : to test the worth or quality of; specifically : to compare against a standard —sometimes used with up or out c : to check the correctness of (as an arithmetic result)

3 a : to establish the existence, truth, or validity of (as by evidence or logic) <prove a theorem> <the charges were never proved in court> b : to demonstrate as having a particular quality or worth <the vaccine has been proven effective after years of tests> <proved herself a great actress>

4 : to show (oneself) to be worthy or capable <eager to prove myself in the new job>

intransitive verb

: to turn out especially after trial or test <the new drug proved effective>

— prov·able \ˈprü-və-bəl\ adjective

— prov·able·ness noun

— prov·ably \-blē\ adverb

— prov·er \ˈprü-vər\ noun

usage The past participle proven, originally the past participle of preve, a Middle English variant of prove that survived in Scotland, has gradually worked its way into standard English over the past three and a half centuries. It seems to have first become established in legal use and to have come only slowly into literary use. Tennyson was one of its earliest frequent users, probably for metrical reasons. It was disapproved by 19th century grammarians, one of whom included it in a list of “words that are not words.” Surveys made some 50 or 60 years ago indicated that proved was about four times as frequent as proven. But our evidence from the last 30 or 35 years shows this no longer to be the case. As a past participle proven is now about as frequent as proved in all contexts. As an attributive adjective <proved or proven gas reserves> proven is much more common than proved.

A bit off-topic, but proving something beyond a shadow of a doubt is tougher than one might think. Heck, how long has it been since scientists "proved" that an asteroid strike caused the end of the dinosaurs' rule on Earth and began the reign of mammals? How long has it been since human beings have accepted an Earth that orbits the Sun (instead of the Sun orbiting Earth)? How long have scientists understood the mechanics of volcanoes or earthquakes (even in part)?What if Stephen Hawking and others are right, string theory is proven correct, and we are shown to exist in nine (or more) dimensions...of which only three are detectable by our human senses (or at least the senses that we understand)? What if they prove that at least six other dimensions co-exist with us that we cannot see, touch, taste, smell or hear?!

"Proving" something is way, WAY more difficult than people make it out to be. FWIW.

agreed. we may not even have the technology to prove their existence one way or the other at this time. in the same boat, there's no way to prove they don’t exist. it's like the Coelacanth... a ancient fish that was believed to be extinct and was found in the 30's... or any other species of animals that are being discovered on a daily basis in the rain forests or oceans. people are so certain they don't exist until, one day, they're discovered or seen.

it just bothers me that people are so certain that something doesn't exist and it cannot be proven one way or another. i understand why they are saying it or may feel that way, but it's very hypocritical for them to criticize one persons side of an argument when they cannot even prove their own side.

The burden of proof is on the person that claims that they do exist.You can't prove a negative anyway.

 

[werdnoynek]

prove to me you exist. all knowing one.

 

[sjacksonfan]

You can make the same argument about anything. The floorboards in your house creak and you instantly believe the some long dead gold miner is doing the samba in your attic. I'm not saying you're lying or crazy. Some people are just wired to process information differently. There are no ghosts. You're not being haunted.

On the bolded statement above, that's what makes it SO hard. People who are afraid of the dark. People who watch a scary movie and then their imaginations take over. Etc. Etc. Those experiences (creaking floorboards, banging radiators, et al) are not what most people over the age of 18 are talking about. You can reduce everyone's experiences to those experiences because it's a lot easier putting every one and every experience in a neat, clean box. I just wish people like you could have an experience that doesn't fit inside that box...and days of rationalizations and "it must have beens..." don't fit the experience.90+ percent of experiences people think they have are bunk. Over-active imaginations. What interests me, however, are those <10% of experiences that are way, WAY tougher to try and explain away.

Certain experiences may be tougher to explain away but eventually they all are or can be. It's about the processing of information and how the mind is capable of interfering with that processing. Movie cameras have been around for a century now. Anyone ever get a "spirit" on tape? C'mon, dude.

 

[sjacksonfan]

prove to me you exist. all knowing one.

Take a break and use the off time to learn proper punctuation. Get it together, bro.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

This thread has potential again....creepy....creepy...potential.

I see 11 pages of oof.

 

[Radical Larry]

This thread has potential again....creepy....creepy...potential.

I see 11 pages of oof.

 

[jdoggydogg]

YOU haven't seen or felt them, however that doesn't mean they don't exist... don't confuse ignorance with knowledge.

Don't confuse wishful thinking with proof.

 

[werdnoynek]

No problem. Take a look around. See any? Has there ever been a proven case in the history of mankind? No? There you go.

proven

Main Entry: prove

Pronunciation: \ˈprüv\

Function: verb

Inflected Form(s): proved; proved or prov·en \ˈprü-vən, British also ˈprō-\; prov·ing \ˈprü-viŋ\

Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French prover, pruver, from Latin probare to test, prove, from probus good, honest, from pro- for, in favor + -bus (akin to Old English bēon to be) — more at pro-, be

Date: 13th century

transitive verb

1 archaic : to learn or find out by experience

2 a : to test the truth, validity, or genuineness of <the exception proves the rule> <prove a will at probate> b : to test the worth or quality of; specifically : to compare against a standard —sometimes used with up or out c : to check the correctness of (as an arithmetic result)

3 a : to establish the existence, truth, or validity of (as by evidence or logic) <prove a theorem> <the charges were never proved in court> b : to demonstrate as having a particular quality or worth <the vaccine has been proven effective after years of tests> <proved herself a great actress>

4 : to show (oneself) to be worthy or capable <eager to prove myself in the new job>

intransitive verb

: to turn out especially after trial or test <the new drug proved effective>

— prov·able \ˈprü-və-bəl\ adjective

— prov·able·ness noun

— prov·ably \-blē\ adverb

— prov·er \ˈprü-vər\ noun

usage The past participle proven, originally the past participle of preve, a Middle English variant of prove that survived in Scotland, has gradually worked its way into standard English over the past three and a half centuries. It seems to have first become established in legal use and to have come only slowly into literary use. Tennyson was one of its earliest frequent users, probably for metrical reasons. It was disapproved by 19th century grammarians, one of whom included it in a list of “words that are not words.” Surveys made some 50 or 60 years ago indicated that proved was about four times as frequent as proven. But our evidence from the last 30 or 35 years shows this no longer to be the case. As a past participle proven is now about as frequent as proved in all contexts. As an attributive adjective <proved or proven gas reserves> proven is much more common than proved.

A bit off-topic, but proving something beyond a shadow of a doubt is tougher than one might think. Heck, how long has it been since scientists "proved" that an asteroid strike caused the end of the dinosaurs' rule on Earth and began the reign of mammals? How long has it been since human beings have accepted an Earth that orbits the Sun (instead of the Sun orbiting Earth)? How long have scientists understood the mechanics of volcanoes or earthquakes (even in part)?What if Stephen Hawking and others are right, string theory is proven correct, and we are shown to exist in nine (or more) dimensions...of which only three are detectable by our human senses (or at least the senses that we understand)? What if they prove that at least six other dimensions co-exist with us that we cannot see, touch, taste, smell or hear?!

"Proving" something is way, WAY more difficult than people make it out to be. FWIW.

agreed. we may not even have the technology to prove their existence one way or the other at this time. in the same boat, there's no way to prove they don’t exist. it's like the Coelacanth... a ancient fish that was believed to be extinct and was found in the 30's... or any other species of animals that are being discovered on a daily basis in the rain forests or oceans. people are so certain they don't exist until, one day, they're discovered or seen.

it just bothers me that people are so certain that something doesn't exist and it cannot be proven one way or another. i understand why they are saying it or may feel that way, but it's very hypocritical for them to criticize one persons side of an argument when they cannot even prove their own side.

The burden of proof is on the person that claims that they do exist.You can't prove a negative anyway.

you can believe it when you see it and deny it until you do all you want. it's an easy road to travel. big fan of logic here.... but i disagree with the bolded... leaving work now, more to come later.

ETA: the earth is NOT flat. (negative: check, proven: check)

 

[werdnoynek]

prove to me you exist. all knowing one.

Take a break and use the off time to learn proper punctuation. Get it together, bro.

isn't there something else you could criticize? punctuation was never my strong suit.

 

[jdoggydogg]

there's no right or wrong in these arguments because there's no way (yet?) to prove OR deny the existence of spirits/ghosts, just as there's no way (yet?) to prove OR deny the existence of God. for you to be so certain that there's no such thing as a spirit or ghost is just silly, because there's no such thing as certainty in something that cannot be proven.

big fan of logic here

The comments above are contradictory. You claim to be a fan of logic, but your arguments are illogical. You're validating the existence of god and ghosts by asking people to disprove these things. Do I need to disprove the existence of unicorns and dragons to prove to you they don't exist?"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." ~ Christopher Hitchens

 

[Psychopav]

Wow did this thread get boring.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Wow did this thread get boring.

Why don't you make it interesting again?

 

[werdnoynek]

there's no right or wrong in these arguments because there's no way (yet?) to prove OR deny the existence of spirits/ghosts, just as there's no way (yet?) to prove OR deny the existence of God. for you to be so certain that there's no such thing as a spirit or ghost is just silly, because there's no such thing as certainty in something that cannot be proven.

big fan of logic here

The comments above are contradictory. You claim to be a fan of logic, but your arguments are illogical. You're validating the existence of god and ghosts by asking people to disprove these things. Do I need to disprove the existence of unicorns and dragons to prove to you they don't exist?"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." ~ Christopher Hitchens

i'm not validating anything, i don't believe in god, and atm i'm on the fence with ghosts... what i am saying is no one is right or wrong here... but there's people claiming that ghosts do not (for certain) exist and the people who believe ghosts are wrong (not to mention crazy/psychotic). that's just not true because there's no proof one way or another.that's really all i wanted to add to this. i found the thread very interesting and enjoyable. what i didn't like what the people who come in here and just write everything off as some schizophrenic hallucination. ETA: i'd consider myself a spiritual person... i believe there's a spirit. lets leave it at that, i'm getting off topic here.

 

[jdoggydogg]

there's no right or wrong in these arguments because there's no way (yet?) to prove OR deny the existence of spirits/ghosts, just as there's no way (yet?) to prove OR deny the existence of God. for you to be so certain that there's no such thing as a spirit or ghost is just silly, because there's no such thing as certainty in something that cannot be proven.

big fan of logic here

The comments above are contradictory. You claim to be a fan of logic, but your arguments are illogical. You're validating the existence of god and ghosts by asking people to disprove these things. Do I need to disprove the existence of unicorns and dragons to prove to you they don't exist?"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." ~ Christopher Hitchens

i'm not validating anything, i don't believe in god, and atm i'm on the fence with ghosts... what i am saying is no one is right or wrong here... but there's people claiming that ghosts do not (for certain) exist and the people who believe there are ghosts that exist are wrong. that's just not true.

So what is true? What's true is there's not a shred of credible proof that ghosts exist. Anecdotal evidence of events that the writer cannot explain is not evidence.

 

[werdnoynek]

there's no right or wrong in these arguments because there's no way (yet?) to prove OR deny the existence of spirits/ghosts, just as there's no way (yet?) to prove OR deny the existence of God. for you to be so certain that there's no such thing as a spirit or ghost is just silly, because there's no such thing as certainty in something that cannot be proven.

big fan of logic here

The comments above are contradictory. You claim to be a fan of logic, but your arguments are illogical. You're validating the existence of god and ghosts by asking people to disprove these things. Do I need to disprove the existence of unicorns and dragons to prove to you they don't exist?"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." ~ Christopher Hitchens

i'm not validating anything, i don't believe in god, and atm i'm on the fence with ghosts...what i am saying is no one is right or wrong here... but there's people claiming that ghosts do not (for certain) exist and the people who believe ghosts are wrong (not to mention crazy/psychotic). that's just not true because there's no proof one way or another.that's really all i wanted to add to this. i found the thread very interesting and enjoyable. what i didn't like what the people who come in here and just write everything off as some schizophrenic hallucination.ETA: i'd consider myself a spiritual person... i believe there's a spirit. lets leave it at that, i'm getting off topic here.

So what is true? What's true is there's not a shred of credible proof that ghosts exist. Anecdotal evidence of events that the writer cannot explain is not evidence.

great question (edited my previous post above)does everything need an explanation? is it so hard to believe that we're not currently equipped with the technology or that some human beings have the ability to see/feel/communicate with spirits? as our technology and physiology evolves, maybe someday we will and maybe we won't. all i'm saying is that just because someone claims to have seen or done something you cannot comprehend or understand, does not make it untrue. it makes it unknown.

 

[Joe Bryant]

prove to me you exist. all knowing one.

Take a break and use the off time to learn proper punctuation. Get it together, bro.

Hi sjacksonfan,You seem to be a sincere guy. And if I'm understanding you right on this one and in some of the religion threads, to generalize, you're basically of the opinion that what we have here is all there is. No "spiritual world" or afterlife or that kind of thing. Is that a fair generalization of your view?If so, I can see that for sure. I think lots (maybe most) folks are like that.What I'd ask though is whether you think it might be possible that that is a somewhat "close minded" position to believe there's nothing more here than what we can physically describe? Please understand, I'm not calling you close minded. I'm just asking if maybe your position could be. That maybe there is more here than we can physically know. In other words, that we might not know everything here.Thoughts on that?J

 

[werdnoynek]

 

[Ranethe]

Something very strange happened last week at my house....

Your wife honestly believes this is some kind of ghostly encounter? Wat? Really? Really? Guys, there's no such thing as ghosts or "spirits". Spirit is a made up concept.

prove that there isn't ghosts or spirits... wise guy.

No problem. Take a look around. See any? Has there ever been a proven case in the history of mankind? No? There you go.

YOU haven't seen or felt them, however that doesn't mean they don't exist... don't confuse ignorance with knowledge. your same argument is used to dispute God and religions... however, there's no right or wrong in these arguments because there's no way (yet?) to prove OR deny the existence of spirits/ghosts, just as there's no way (yet?) to prove OR deny the existence of God.

for you to be so certain that there's no such thing as a spirit or ghost is just silly, because there's no such thing as certainty in something that cannot be proven.

i've never seen a ghost, but i don't dismiss people as crazy or schizophrenic because they have or think they have. i suggest you do the same - if you don't that's fine too. maybe someday you'll be the ghost who doesn't know they're dead yet because [in your dead mind] there's no such thing as ghosts...

Wow

 

[Psychopav]

Wow did this thread get boring.

Why don't you make it interesting again?

I have no good ghost stories.

 

[sjacksonfan]

prove to me you exist. all knowing one.

Take a break and use the off time to learn proper punctuation. Get it together, bro.

Hi sjacksonfan,You seem to be a sincere guy. And if I'm understanding you right on this one and in some of the religion threads, to generalize, you're basically of the opinion that what we have here is all there is. No "spiritual world" or afterlife or that kind of thing. Is that a fair generalization of your view?If so, I can see that for sure. I think lots (maybe most) folks are like that.What I'd ask though is whether you think it might be possible that that is a somewhat "close minded" position to believe there's nothing more here than what we can physically describe? Please understand, I'm not calling you close minded. I'm just asking if maybe your position could be. That maybe there is more here than we can physically know. In other words, that we might not know everything here.Thoughts on that?J

You have it wrong. I'm not an atheist and this thread has nothing to do with religion. This thread is about ghosts, hauntings and "spirits", like the ones you see in scary movies. I'm just saying in the history of mankind with all of the recording devices we have, where's even one shred of evidence? You guys want to think John Edward isn't pulling your leg? Hey, knock yourself out.If you want to say I'm closed minded because I don't believe in your brand of man-made religion, that's another thread and one that we both know is a waste of time.

 

[werdnoynek]

i really don't see how spirits have nothing at all to do with religions, but i do see this is going to go nowhere. it was fun while it lasted let the ghost stories and the non believer mockery of them continue!!

 

[jplvr]

This thread has potential again....creepy....creepy...potential.

I see 11 pages of oof.

No kidding.I do like reading this kind of stuff though. Makes my hair stand up like when I'm scared, or hear things I can't explain right away. I've even had an experience with sleep paralysis, and while completely freaked out, easily explainable.I certainly can't make any claims of sobreity, just saying no, or staying a virgin. F'n college.

 

[Tom Vu]

One of the problems is that your senses are not very reliable.

How many times have you been walking and seen something on the ground that you swear is a quarter or a dollar bill? But when you get close enough you realize it is part of a foil wrapper or just a scrap of green paper. How many times have you heard the lyrics to a song only to find out later that what you thought you heard wasn't even close?

Magicians live and die by the fact that our brain tricks us into thinking we're seeing one thing when something else is actually happening.

Add into this unreliability of our senses that you already believe in the supernatural and you're sold.

Why do you think ultra-religious people see Jesus or the Virgin Mary in burnt toast or peeling wallpaper?

So I head out to my car for lunch from my office the other day and I see the parking lot security guy lighting some candles next to a small tree. So I confront the guy and ask what's with the makeshift shrine? He tells me that he saw St. Peter in the tree. I ask him how does he know it's St. Peter? He answers because he happens to carry a picture of St. Peter in his wallet and the face in the wallet matches the face in the tree.I stopped by the office over the weekend and the guy was praying at shrine with his family and tending to the candles.

 

[datonn]

Hi sjacksonfan,

You seem to be a sincere guy. And if I'm understanding you right on this one and in some of the religion threads, to generalize, you're basically of the opinion that what we have here is all there is. No "spiritual world" or afterlife or that kind of thing. Is that a fair generalization of your view?

If so, I can see that for sure. I think lots (maybe most) folks are like that.

What I'd ask though is whether you think it might be possible that that is a somewhat "close minded" position to believe there's nothing more here than what we can physically describe? Please understand, I'm not calling you close minded. I'm just asking if maybe your position could be. That maybe there is more here than we can physically know. In other words, that we might not know everything here.

Thoughts on that?

J

You have it wrong. I'm not an atheist and 1. this thread has nothing to do with religion. This thread is about ghosts, hauntings and "spirits", 2. like the ones you see in scary movies. I'm just saying in the history of mankind with all of the recording devices we have, 3. where's even one shred of evidence? 4. You guys want to think John Edward isn't pulling your leg? Hey, knock yourself out.If you want to say I'm closed minded because I don't believe in your brand of man-made religion, that's another thread and one that we both know is a waste of time.

Sorry in advance for the long reply.Bolded statement #1. This thread actually has quite a bit to do with religion and the supposed after-life. It's also a "cousin" to a lot of issues surrounding science (physics, in particular)...as if Hawking's Theory of Everything and String Theory prove to be correct, it'll show that even as of June 24, 2010, humanity's understanding of our world around us still makes us barely toddlers in the big scheme of things.

Bolded statements 2 and 4. I'll give you three guesses as to why the word "irony" popped into my head after reading those two comments. I'll even give you a hint: Imagine my maternal grandmother calling herself a devout Christian and NOT a racist, while a minute or two later trying to explain why she wouldn't put pictures of two of her grandchildren (my cousins) out in her home because they were 1/4 native Hawaiian and 1/4 Japanese.

If you think this thread is about "The Sixth Sense," things that go bump in the night, and/or John Edward, you either haven't been paying attention, or you have been paying attention, but are running the information/stories through some heavy, heavy filters/glasses. I don't remember once someone telling you that you were wrong/naive for NOT believing in ghost/spirits/demons. However, you sure have felt comfortable enough and confident in yourself to make those wrong/naive claims on the other side of the equation. And Joe is wrong in what he posted?

Bolded statement #3. Again, it depends upon how you define "proof" and "evidence." There's lots of video and audio recordings out there that are at least odd or not easily explained. You already know the whole topic is bunk though...so even if you can't say what something is, you are 100% certain that you know what it isn't. Hey...your prerogative, and no sweat off anyone else's back. Again though, I would cite things such as string theory and the potential for a much more multi-dimensional universe than humans previously thought existed and ask you how you can be so certain of anything...when we might only be experiencing 1/3 of the entire picture in our normal lives via our senses.

It's a fascinating topic for me. That said, it's also pretty easy to dismiss most of what people experience with rational explanations. What I find so interesting though is how you assume that everyone coming here (myself included) is either naive and/or WANTS to believe in ghosts/spirits/demons so badly that it hurts...and that any sign of __________ is immediately proof for them.

Quick story: The family room in our home is probably one of the more interesting/active rooms in our house. Since I work late most nights, I'll often turn on the TV for an hour or two and decompress as I try and chill-out after working. Pretty much every night I go into the room and shut the door behind me (to keep it quiet for the kids), I hear a strange "whispering" sound as I close the door. GHOSTS, right?! Nope. Actually, the first and only thought in my mind was a room with live acoustics (no carpet, plaster walls). And I know this to be the case because it's repeatable. I can make the sound happen when I want to.

So...that means that EVERY experience in there is false/garbage, correct?! Not so fast. Earlier in the week, I shut down the computer and headed down to the family room to catch Rachel Maddow on MSNBC as a thunderstorm was rumbling in from the SW. Shut the door, smiled at the "whisper" noise, and chilled out in front of the TV. As the storm hit, a lot of lightning was occurring to the North and West (windows on the North side of the room). Didn't think much of it...but as I was watching the TV, I saw a bit of movement about 3-4 feet left of the TV. Kind of like a dark shape and a small ball of light. I see that type of thing a lot, so I didn't think anything of it. What WAS interesting though was what happened about one second later.

Just after I noticed this seemingly out of place movement (no bugs in the room) and small light, there was a flash of lightning to the North. And when the lightning flashed, I saw the shape of what appeared to be a 5-6' dark grey/black "thing" standing in the middle of the room.

First thought: Shadows from trees outside the window. Fail. Room is about 20' off the ground, and the nearest tree/house more than 20-25' tall is about 50-75 yards away.

Second thought: Maybe it was MY shadow or the shadow of something behind me but in front of the window? Fail. I was lying on the couch, the couch is right up under that window, and this ??? that had the shape of two arms, two legs, head and a torso was standing upright.

Third thought: Some other type of weird shadow cast by something outside. This is what I thought was really interesting. That dark "shadow" or shape was in the middle of the room. However, there was no shadow cast on the wall about five feet to the South (behind whatever I saw). And there were probably 4-5 lightning flashes to the North every minute for about 5-10 minutes after that...but I only saw ??? that one time.

Now...does that mean I saw a ghost/spirit? Nope. All I am saying is that what I saw was "interesting." It didn't scare me. I hadn't been thinking about anything supernatural/paranormal. I hadn't watched any sca-sca-scary movies! I just saw something that appeared three-dimensional that didn't cast a shadow that I couldn't explain. I wasn't just about to fall asleep. I hadn't fallen asleep and just woken up. I had no alcohol (2-3 drinks per YEAR) or drugs (never tried anything stronger than caffeine) in my system. It was simply an interesting experience.

 

[Tom Vu]

One of the problems is that your senses are not very reliable.

How many times have you been walking and seen something on the ground that you swear is a quarter or a dollar bill? But when you get close enough you realize it is part of a foil wrapper or just a scrap of green paper. How many times have you heard the lyrics to a song only to find out later that what you thought you heard wasn't even close?

Magicians live and die by the fact that our brain tricks us into thinking we're seeing one thing when something else is actually happening.

Add into this unreliability of our senses that you already believe in the supernatural and you're sold.

Why do you think ultra-religious people see Jesus or the Virgin Mary in burnt toast or peeling wallpaper?

Or that Lovie Smith will lead the Bears to the playoffs!

This will most definitely happen. No spooky stuff or belief in the supernatural required.

 

[jdoggydogg]

does everything need an explanation? is it so hard to believe that we're not currently equipped with the technology or that some human beings have the ability to see/feel/communicate with spirits? as our technology and physiology evolves, maybe someday we will and maybe we won't. all i'm saying is that just because someone claims to have seen or done something you cannot comprehend or understand, does not make it untrue. it makes it unknown.

I'm not saying that we can explain everything. I'm saying that something unexplainable does not lend credibility to the supernatural. Fact is, existentialism is a basic human need. We all hope or wonder what happens when we die. However, deep belief in god and ghosts says more about our fear of death and nonexistence than anything else. This urge to believe in something that is unprovable is strong despite all the vast power of our skeptical, analytical brains.

 

[Steve Tasker]

You can make the same argument about anything. The floorboards in your house creak and you instantly believe the some long dead gold miner is doing the samba in your attic. I'm not saying you're lying or crazy. Some people are just wired to process information differently. There are no ghosts. You're not being haunted.

On the bolded statement above, that's what makes it SO hard. People who are afraid of the dark. People who watch a scary movie and then their imaginations take over. Etc. Etc. Those experiences (creaking floorboards, banging radiators, et al) are not what most people over the age of 18 are talking about. You can reduce everyone's experiences to those experiences because it's a lot easier putting every one and every experience in a neat, clean box. I just wish people like you could have an experience that doesn't fit inside that box...and days of rationalizations and "it must have beens..." don't fit the experience.90+ percent of experiences people think they have are bunk. Over-active imaginations. What interests me, however, are those <10% of experiences that are way, WAY tougher to try and explain away.

Certain experiences may be tougher to explain away but eventually they all are or can be. It's about the processing of information and how the mind is capable of interfering with that processing. Movie cameras have been around for a century now. Anyone ever get a "spirit" on tape? C'mon, dude.

The problem, which I know I've reiterated in this thread many times, is that there truly are unexplainable events that happen day-to-day.Some people attribute it to the supernatural - if we don't know what it is, there's a good chance it's a ghost/spirit/whatever. Others simply recognize that just because something is unexplainable doesn't mean that it's supernatural - it just means that the event can't be explained. There probably is a logical explanation, we just don't know what it is.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Quick story: The family room in our home is probably one of the more interesting/active rooms in our house. Since I work late most nights, I'll often turn on the TV for an hour or two and decompress as I try and chill-out after working. Pretty much every night I go into the room and shut the door behind me (to keep it quiet for the kids), I hear a strange "whispering" sound as I close the door. GHOSTS, right?! Nope. Actually, the first and only thought in my mind was a room with live acoustics (no carpet, plaster walls). And I know this to be the case because it's repeatable. I can make the sound happen when I want to.So...that means that EVERY experience in there is false/garbage, correct?! Not so fast. Earlier in the week, I shut down the computer and headed down to the family room to catch Rachel Maddow on MSNBC as a thunderstorm was rumbling in from the SW. Shut the door, smiled at the "whisper" noise, and chilled out in front of the TV. As the storm hit, a lot of lightning was occurring to the North and West (windows on the North side of the room). Didn't think much of it...but as I was watching the TV, I saw a bit of movement about 3-4 feet left of the TV. Kind of like a dark shape and a small ball of light. I see that type of thing a lot, so I didn't think anything of it. What WAS interesting though was what happened about one second later.Just after I noticed this seemingly out of place movement (no bugs in the room) and small light, there was a flash of lightning to the North. And when the lightning flashed, I saw the shape of what appeared to be a 5-6' dark grey/black "thing" standing in the middle of the room.First thought: Shadows from trees outside the window. Fail. Room is about 20' off the ground, and the nearest tree/house more than 20-25' tall is about 50-75 yards away.Second thought: Maybe it was MY shadow or the shadow of something behind me but in front of the window? Fail. I was lying on the couch, the couch is right up under that window, and this ??? that had the shape of two arms, two legs, head and a torso was standing upright.Third thought: Some other type of weird shadow cast by something outside. This is what I thought was really interesting. That dark "shadow" or shape was in the middle of the room. However, there was no shadow cast on the wall about five feet to the South (behind whatever I saw). And there were probably 4-5 lightning flashes to the North every minute for about 5-10 minutes after that...but I only saw ??? that one time.Now...does that mean I saw a ghost/spirit? Nope. All I am saying is that what I saw was "interesting." It didn't scare me. I hadn't been thinking about anything supernatural/paranormal. I hadn't watched any sca-sca-scary movies! I just saw something that appeared three-dimensional that didn't cast a shadow that I couldn't explain. I wasn't just about to fall asleep. I hadn't fallen asleep and just woken up. I had no alcohol (2-3 drinks per YEAR) or drugs (never tried anything stronger than caffeine) in my system. It was simply an interesting experience.

Set up us the webcam already.

 

[Steve Tasker]

FWIW, John Edward is a brilliant con artist.

 

[Tom Vu]

One of my lovelies sees ghosts/dark shadowed people all the time. She's experienced it all from seeing recently departed family members to being assaulted by what she perceived to be evil entities since she was a child.

She doesn't talk about it much but sometimes will mention a recent experience to me if she was scared or couldn't sleep or whatevers.

I have no reason to believe she it making this stuff up even though I haven't experienced any spooky stuff when I've been with her. I try to be supportive of her and told her to make her home a sacred space and if she encounters something spooky tell whatever it is to GTFO.

 

[monkeysee]

Back in 1977 my best friend and his wife stayed at an isolated Colorado hotel in the middle of winter where he was finishing a writing project. His wife took care of the hotel. During the stay their son Danny started seeing visions of the hotel's dark past using a telepathic gift he had from the time he was a toddler. Anyway the isolation of this place started to drive my friend mad. A ghost he had befriended convinced him to correct his family and he set off to kill his wife and child.

wow, nice story brah - this would make a great movie... move along

You're excused, and I'm not your brah!

 

[datonn]

FWIW, John Edward is a brilliant con artist.

Fixed that last post for you.FWIW, I agree. I just wish that for people like sjacksonfan, (as an unrelated example, but a good one for making the point) politician John Edwards cheating on his wife while she is slowly dying of cancer wouldn't automatically mean that EVERY politician is cheating on their wife/husband while they are slowly dying of cancer. If you catch my drift.

 

[Das Boot]

Some people attribute it to the supernatural - if we don't know what it is, there's a good chance it's a ghost/spirit/whatever. Others simply recognize that just because something is unexplainable doesn't mean that it's supernatural - it just means that the event can't be explained. There probably is a logical explanation, we just don't know what it is.

Maybe the supernatural is the logical explanation for some of those things and we just don't see it as logical.

 

[Steve Tasker]

Some people attribute it to the supernatural - if we don't know what it is, there's a good chance it's a ghost/spirit/whatever. Others simply recognize that just because something is unexplainable doesn't mean that it's supernatural - it just means that the event can't be explained. There probably is a logical explanation, we just don't know what it is.

Maybe the supernatural is the logical explanation for some of those things and we just don't see it as logical.

whoa

 

[da_budman]

You can make the same argument about anything. The floorboards in your house creak and you instantly believe the some long dead gold miner is doing the samba in your attic. I'm not saying you're lying or crazy. Some people are just wired to process information differently. There are no ghosts. You're not being haunted.

On the bolded statement above, that's what makes it SO hard. People who are afraid of the dark. People who watch a scary movie and then their imaginations take over. Etc. Etc. Those experiences (creaking floorboards, banging radiators, et al) are not what most people over the age of 18 are talking about. You can reduce everyone's experiences to those experiences because it's a lot easier putting every one and every experience in a neat, clean box. I just wish people like you could have an experience that doesn't fit inside that box...and days of rationalizations and "it must have beens..." don't fit the experience.90+ percent of experiences people think they have are bunk. Over-active imaginations. What interests me, however, are those <10% of experiences that are way, WAY tougher to try and explain away.

Certain experiences may be tougher to explain away but eventually they all are or can be. It's about the processing of information and how the mind is capable of interfering with that processing. Movie cameras have been around for a century now. Anyone ever get a "spirit" on tape? C'mon, dude.

The problem, which I know I've reiterated in this thread many times, is that there truly are unexplainable events that happen day-to-day.Some people attribute it to the supernatural - if we don't know what it is, there's a good chance it's a ghost/spirit/whatever. Others simply recognize that just because something is unexplainable doesn't mean that it's supernatural - it just means that the event can't be explained. There probably is a logical explanation, we just don't know what it is.

Put me in the skeptical but open minded category. I have had several experiences I cannot explain. Is there an explanation for them? Maybe, but not one that doesn't stretch the bounds of common sense and science.

One short story I will share:

When I was 17 I was given a cross on a very small closed chain by a Nun at the church I went to as a graduation present. By small I mean 1" or so. I put the crucifix on a regular lenghth chain that had a clasp (passing the larger chain through the smaller chain) and wore it around my neck. A few weeks later while wearing it, I saw the crucifix fall to the ground in front of me.

I figured the tiny chain had broken. I picked it up off the ground and not only was the small chain that the crucifix on unbroken, the chain I was still wearing around my neck was still firmy clasped. Somehow the shorter chain and longer chain had were no longer coupled?

After a few days of being freaked out about it, linked the 2 chains together and stated wearing the cross again. The same thing happened a few days later and at that point I took the thing off, never to wear it again.

Now I have no idea how that happened. If there is a scientific explanation I don't know what it could be yet I didn't necessarily chalk it up to supernatural/ good vs evil ( though that explanation crossed my mind) To this day I have no better explanation that a kink in the smaller chain had to have opened up then reclosed upon impact. To have that happen 1 time stretches common sense a bit but to have it happen twice?

 

[werdnoynek]

The burden of proof is on the person that claims that they do exist.You can't prove a negative anyway.

alright so this logic thing we were discussing... i've had some time to think about this and i'll try to make sense of what i was trying to say...first off, thanks for posting this larry, while i like to discuss logic, i don't always follow it (as you've noticed) lol... but love the discussion nonetheless.now, i definitely agree with your your first statement - right out of the rules of logic. the second is as well in this situation. i rescind my statement about them being hypocritical. really though, the reason i asked mr. jackson to prove the "non-existence" of ghosts is because it's impossible. as impossible as the existence of ghosts is to him, which was kind of my point.the statement negatives can't be proven isn't always true as i rudely pointed out (sorry i was in a rush, no offense intended) - the earth is NOT round, i am NOT a fish, yada yada yada we could go on and on with these. it's pretty clear a you CAN prove a negative. however, with what we're discussing, neither side (those who say spirits exist and those who say they don't) can prove their argument (i think i've said this too many times already). people who have seen ghosts are basically asserting they exist - they've seen/felt/experienced them and therefore to them, they exist - they don't need to explain it. this is the same with religious people (again, i'm not religious). people who believe in god assert His (or her or it's) existence every time they discuss it even without saying it outright. herein lies the issue. (and where the logical/illogical are divided obviously) with these topics there's no definition of spirits or God... we don't have anything concrete as to what they are. to me, at this time we don't have the technology to define or specify the nature of God or spirits. (with that statement, i'm admitting being a spiritual person) here's where i'm kind of divided on logic, which is pretty much the only place i'm divided on logic, and it's been brought up by others already as well. i feel that not everything can be explained logically - especially the existence of God or spirits or any other mystical beings. i like discussing these things, but get irritated when people discuss their sides with such certainty. which brings me to my main point with the naysayers in here calling mr. danton a schizophrenic and crazy. i just don't agree with all the criticism going his way and felt i needed to stick up for him a bit. while i may not believe what he's saying, i can't prove what he's saying is or isn't true. i believe he believes what he's saying is true and that's good enough for me.

does everything need an explanation? is it so hard to believe that we're not currently equipped with the technology or that some human beings have the ability to see/feel/communicate with spirits? as our technology and physiology evolves, maybe someday we will and maybe we won't. all i'm saying is that just because someone claims to have seen or done something you cannot comprehend or understand, does not make it untrue. it makes it unknown.

I'm not saying that we can explain everything. I'm saying that something unexplainable does not lend credibility to the supernatural. Fact is, existentialism is a basic human need. We all hope or wonder what happens when we die. However, deep belief in god and ghosts says more about our fear of death and nonexistence than anything else. This urge to believe in something that is unprovable is strong despite all the vast power of our skeptical, analytical brains.

i agree with what you've said and i think my above post kinda explains where i'm coming from in a bit more detail. existentialism is definitely something i'm very interested in, yet still pretty uneducated on (for my own liking). i've really enjoyed the stories and this discussion and hope we can keep it going. i'd just like everyone to keep more of an open minded about this thing, if possible. again, there is no right or wrong here. (last time i'm going to say that lol...)ETA: really late when i actually typed these thoughts out... i apologize in advance if it doesn't make any sense, i'll proofread tomorrow ETA2: almost asleep, still thinking about this, i realized i'm asking the logical to be illogical. is that too much to ask? lol... i guess agreeing to disagree would be the best route.

 

[datonn]

which brings me to my main point with the naysayers in here calling mr. danton a schizophrenic and crazy. i just don't agree with all the criticism going his way and felt i needed to stick up for him a bit. while i may not believe what he's saying, i can't prove what he's saying is or isn't true. i believe he believes what he's saying is true and that's good enough for me.

Heh. I appreciate the support. However, you don't participate in the FFA for the past 6-7+ years and post the kind of stuff I've been posting in this thread unless you know you can look out for yourself and/or have some thick skin. People can call me the King of the Imbeciles and the Merriam-Webster definition of Dazed and Confused if they want to. So what? Their opinions, experiences and beliefs are more valuable/accurate than mine? I'm pushing 40 now...so the older I've gotten, the less I care what other people think about me. It's better to be liked than disliked and better to be thought of as wise/intelligent than thought an idiot, of course! However, in the end, unless people are in my inner, INNER circle of family/friends and/or unless I've got something financial riding on a relationship with someone, who really cares what other people think about you? That junk is for junior high, high school and trying to get laid. Just be you, and like the skin you're in...and life gets a whole lot easier to enjoy or at least tolerate.

 

[Joe Bryant]

prove to me you exist. all knowing one.

Take a break and use the off time to learn proper punctuation. Get it together, bro.

Hi sjacksonfan,You seem to be a sincere guy. And if I'm understanding you right on this one and in some of the religion threads, to generalize, you're basically of the opinion that what we have here is all there is. No "spiritual world" or afterlife or that kind of thing. Is that a fair generalization of your view?If so, I can see that for sure. I think lots (maybe most) folks are like that.What I'd ask though is whether you think it might be possible that that is a somewhat "close minded" position to believe there's nothing more here than what we can physically describe? Please understand, I'm not calling you close minded. I'm just asking if maybe your position could be. That maybe there is more here than we can physically know. In other words, that we might not know everything here.Thoughts on that?J

You have it wrong. I'm not an atheist and this thread has nothing to do with religion. This thread is about ghosts, hauntings and "spirits", like the ones you see in scary movies. I'm just saying in the history of mankind with all of the recording devices we have, where's even one shred of evidence? You guys want to think John Edward isn't pulling your leg? Hey, knock yourself out.If you want to say I'm closed minded because I don't believe in your brand of man-made religion, that's another thread and one that we both know is a waste of time.

Sorry. Wasn't trying to say anything like that. I'm asking if you thought it might possibly be close minded to think we know everything there is to know there. And that it might possibly be close minded to think we can only know what we can see / measure / feel etc. J

 

[Frostillicus]

it's like the Coelacanth...

Comparing ghosts to the coelacanth is straight up loco.