Do you believe in ghosts or the supernatural?

[NJmaverick]

Do you believe? Have you experienced it?

[soleft]

1. I believe we don't know everything there is to know about energy

And matter. There is certainly shit that happens that we can't explain. I enjoy the show Ghosthunters a lot because even though most of the time nothing happens, when it does happen, it's some pretty freaky stuff.

[SallyMander]

2. Nope - i'm a scientist

I believe that things that appear "supernatural" now will one day have scientific (natural) explanations.

[TZ]

3. I'm a skeptic

Yet to see any *convincing* evidence that the supernatural exists.
My world is very evidence based (which is why I am an atheist, I suppose).

[Chan790]

4. No, and yet yes.

I don't buy into ghosts but I know conservation of energy exists. Thus when we die and the energy of being escapes from us, it has to go somewhere. That puts me both inside and outside the skeptic community.

[Chan790]

104. I changed my mind: No, just no. n/m

[BarenakedLady]

5. No

But I think I dreamed about a ghost last night now that I'm thinking about it.

[abq e streeter]

6. I was a ghost agnostic until about 15 years ago

when I experienced something that to this day has no other explanation than something paranormal. Had another ( though completely different type) incident about 5 years ago the night before the funeral of one of my best friends. Also, another of his good friends, an utterly non-religious no-nonsense guy; a fireman actually, related unexplainable phenomena concerning our mutual buddy in the weeks following his death. more: my dad's best friend , also a not at all spiritually oriented nor religious guy, died in March. He'd been mostly unconscious in the final days, and had not uttered a word during that time, when he suddenly opened his eyes and said " I'm in heaven" and never spoke another word before he died a day or two later.

[Shine]

7. Energy takes form in many unique ways, who are we to judge what's "real" and "not real"?

Personally, I'm quite comfortable knowing there is much we DON'T know and can't explain. :D With that said, I've had lots of experiences in my life which could be considered "supernatural", mostly in the domain of synchronicity and coincidence. I am open to those sorts of things happening in my life and so they happen more frequently. I think a lot of it has to do with one's Perception.

The bottom line is, there's no "right" or "wrong" way to look at this. It doesn't "mean" anything if one believes in ghosts or the supernatural or not. It's just another viewpoint.

With regards to ghosts, I think they are entirely possible b/c there are a lot of wounded souls on this planet and my interpretation of what a ghost is, is a soul who has been unable to let go of past wounds, strong emotions or whatever it is that can keep it bound to the material plane.

We are called to embrace The Mystery and remember we are a part of it.

[Deep13]

86. We are people who can examine evidence and draw conclusions from it.

I guess I never understood the whole "who are we to do such and such" argument.

[Shine]

116. Isn't it great we're all so unique and special?

just like everybody else! :rofl:

We all get to "examine the evidence and draw conclusions", like you say, but they're obviously not the same conclusions.

That's my point: who is to say whose perspective is more "valid" than another's? :shrug:

[Fox Mulder]

8. Yes.

And no, I have never experienced it...yet...

[texas1928]

9. To many experiences not to believe something.

[NJmaverick]

10. I will say this about my own beliefs

I worked in a hospital for 15 years and volunteered on an ambulance for over 22, so I have been around death and dying my entire adult life. Yet in all that time, I have never witnessed any supernatural or paranormal event.

[Midlodemocrat]

14. You might appreciate this story.

My SIL died in 2003 at MSKCC in NYC.

Prior to her death, she kept telling my brother that 'your mom is mad that you haven't called her'. Our mom had died the year before.

My brother asked the staff about it and they said that they thought she was glimpsing the 'other side'. This, from a hospital full of scientists. It was truly something.

[NJmaverick]

16. Well I didn't say others at the hospital didn't believe

I had one guy that worked for me, that worked the evening shift. He swore he witnessed supernatural acts, on more than one occassion. I am willing to keep an open mind on the issue, but I have never witnessed anything. You would think with being around death so much, I would be more likely than most, to witness something unexplained.

[RainDog]

49. I know of a similar moment in 2007

my cousin (who is about 18 y/o than me, so she knew my mom for more years than I did) was in the last stages of cancer. her daughter was with her at the hospital.

My cousin told her daughter (who never knew my mother because my mom died long before the daughter was born) that she could see my mom and that she (my mom) was waiting for her.

I'm not saying this is true... my cousin was on pain meds... but it was strange to hear b/c the daughter said this so matter-of-factly.

[Midlodemocrat]

105. My SIL was off the pain meds by the time she made that comment.

She was about 2 weeks from death, so the GI tube, et al had been D/C'd.

and, I believe her and still do. Faith is just that, faith.

[Westegg]

11. When my mother died...

...I thought it'd be a good chance for me to see what's what with the supernatural realm. She died in '01. An incredibly spiritual woman, and one of the brightest lights on earth I have ever known. Honestly, I figured if anyone would ever contact me from the spirit-realm, it would be her. Her love for me was quite profound, and I never doubted it. However, she has not contacted me in any way, shape or form. When she's appeared in my dreams it has always been in a negative fashion-- in which her flaws as a person (there were many) were evident. So I recognize these dreams as my own way of trying to work out, or at least confront, issues between us that we couldn't or didn't deal with while she was living.

Like Fox Mulder, "I want to believe." So I guess my next step will be to find a go-between-- a medium who is vetted by people I have reason to trust-- and I'll try to contact my mom in that way. It's worth a try. I had forgotten my desire to do this until you brought up the subject, nomad1776, so I thank you for that.

[Midlodemocrat]

12. When my mom died in 2002, I started dreaming about her

and haven't stopped. I actually feel as though I hear her voice sometimes. It's very comforting.

[Westegg]

20. Dreams serve many purposes. I'm glad yours are comforting...

...And while my dreams of my mother are often less than comforting, I do think they are helping me. Bottom line? I think my brain wants to be understood, LONGS to be understood. And is sometimes frustrated by the silly human being who's trying to understand it!

[ghostsofgiants]

13. No and no.

I love the idea of ghosts and the supernatural though.

[Blue Diadem]

15. yes and yes

[lost-in-nj]

17. I believe in them

if a house is going to be haunted its mine....
4 family members died here and the man that sold this house to my parents hung himself a few doors down about a week after my parents moved in.....

My younger brother asked my mother, a few minutes before he died, who was standing in the corner waiting for him..... my mom said no one and my brother got upset and said look he is over there!!!

I am home alone, a lot and with the dogs sleeping and me sitting down stairs, I hear footsteps up stairs..... and I hear my other brothers bed squeek, like he was turning ouver in it...

so yes

I believe in the supernatural.....


lost


:hi:

[NJmaverick]

23. Sorry to hear about your younger brother

How old was he when he passed?

[lost-in-nj]

30. he was 27

my older brother was 47


my mom and dad died here to.....

younger brother and Mom had hospice

Dad and older brother... unexpected

1982, 92 and 2002 for the guys

mom

2006


lost

it's ok now.....

:hi:

[Iggo]

18. Nope.

Science for me!

[mainegreen]

19. Hells no.

[datasuspect]

21. i believe in god

so yes.

[Book Lover]

22. No

[DarkTirade]

24. Yes, I believe they're in their what... third season now?

I don't have a TV, hard to keep up.

Oh wait... you're not talking about the TV show, are you. :P

[UndertheOcean]

25. no

I have a brain

[Fox Mulder]

26. So people who believe in the supernatural are brainless?

[UndertheOcean]

27. Yes , ofcourse

[mike_c]

32. I prefer to say...

...that they're utterly batfuck barking delusional, but that's just me.

[Fox Mulder]

53. I'd like to ask you...

what proof do you have that ghosts don't exist?

I'll be waiting...

[MonkeyFunk]

72. It doesn't work that way

people don't have to prove that ghosts don't exist. The default position is that such unlikely things do not exist, and it's up to the claimants to provide evidence that they do.

Your position would require us to believe in every possible entity imaginable until it's proven that they don't exist, and that's clearly nonsensical. Can you prove that intergalactic space-monkeys don't control our every thought and action via their superpowerful secret monkey-mind-beam? Should I believe that's the case until you can disprove it?

[asteroid2003QQ47]

81. I'm with you and...

it looks like you win . . . by default.

[HERVEPA]

94. Monkeyfunk - I want to thank you for all of your clear,

well-reasoned, articulate posts in this thread. A pleasure to read.

[amitten]

122. A closed one. n/t

[Tuesday Afternoon]

28. yes and yes.

Energy takes many forms.

[Alexander]

29. No to both.

[mike_c]

31. no....

Just no.

[YankeyMCC]

33. Supernatural is by definition

beyond nature, or outside nature therefore by definition does not exist.

If you mean ghosts and spirits as described in most western 'ghost storis' told around campfires etc...no, I mean I believe it he stories and have fun with them, but that is their role, to entertain and enlighten in a metaphorical way not tell true stories.

There indeed may be phenomenon that look/seem like ghosts but they would be manifestations of some aspect of nature we do not yet understand therefore by definition Not "supernatural" and of course any extraordinary claim would require extraordinary evidence. And personally I've never seen anything convincing concerning the existence of ghosts.

[MonkeyFunk]

34. Nope

As for ghosts, I think the whole notion is silly.

We know, for example, that in order to see, one needs eyes and optic nerves and a brain to interpret it. So how does a non-corporeal being see? Or hear? Or vocalize? It's just nonsensical.

[johnnie]

39. So you can't visualize when you close your eyes?

You can't "hear" a song if you think about one?

[MonkeyFunk]

41. sure

but that's not the claim made about ghosts.

They appear to see and hear. They appear to move. They sometimes vocalize. How can a non-corporeal entity do those things?

[LeftyMom]

35. No, no and no.

I enjoy stories about that kind of thing, but I don't think they're real.

[LadyoftheRabbits]

36. In a way, yes.

I enjoy reading/listening to accounts of the supernatural, whether they be obviously bogus or intriguingly credible. :)

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

37. I KNOW (in spite of our BELIEF we 'know' everything) there's things beyond our comprehension.

:shrug:

Can any human being honestly state complete confidence in his/her interpretation of ALL events? Well, of course s/he CAN,...but, that sort of belief is debunked every damn day by events no one masters: the weather, a flat tire, connection with a complete stranger, the lottery, lightning strike, a stray dog becoming a person's only comfort, and so on and so forth.

It's silly, we humans being something less than a grain of sand in the universe, to believe ourselves masters of all knowledge and understanding, in my humble opinion.

[Iggo]

38. I don't believe I know everything.

I like Science, where we figure it out as we go along.

[Rising Phoenix]

40. I do

I have been seeing spirts since I was a young child......I can ask them to come, and go......hear them...

[NJmaverick]

43. what do they say to you?

[Rising Phoenix]

46. a bunch of stuff

the ones I don't know....don't say much.....just g iggle or growl.....to let me know their mood....

But I've had several conversations with my father since he passed.......ones where I could see him and smell him....and hear him....but not touch him.... I reached out and fell right through him. But he told me I was doing a great job taking care of my mom and he would be there every step of the way.....

[MorningGlow]

42. Absolutely, with plenty of personal experiences

I could write a book. Maybe I should...

[Skittles]

44. no, yet I love READING about it and watching shows on it

ultimately thought I think it's all nonsense

[Pacifist Patriot]

47. Same here

[Skittles]

48. I guess I just love the EERINESS of it all

yes INDEED

[Pithlet]

117. Same here.

It's an interesting subject, but I don't believe it's real.

[femmocrat]

45. I want to believe...

but have no actual experience except this one.... after my MIL died, I could smell cigarette smoke in one corner of the bedroom. I thought it meant she was letting me know she was still around. No idea, though.

My mom told me that there was a little penlight flashlight that would flicker after my dad died. She believed he was contacting her.

Who knows?

[bigwillq]

50. I kind of believe.

Never actually had any personal experiences but I am open to the notion that it/they can exist.

[RainDog]

51. not really, but...

like others here have noted, I don't think we know everything about matter and energy and time/space... atoms were "supernatural" before they were science. at the atomic level, things are made out of more nothingness than somethingness... who would ever believe something like that? I don't believe in the idea of a personal god, but I do believe in the idea of the oneness of all matter in the universe, and the "infinite" nature of the universe, for our views of time, so I guess I believe that god is within all of us and we are all part of god. how you deal with that is your life.

in other words, I don't completely discount ppl who say they've had this or that experience, but I am skeptical in the extreme.

at the same time, when my oldest son went to camp for the first time, I woke up in the middle of the night because I "heard" him talking to me b/c he was so scared. So I talked to him, too, and told him not to be afraid. the next day when we picked him up, it turns out that at the time I woke up (3am) the whole cabin woke up b/c some kid claimed to have seen a ghost in the john.

that could be explained as in.. He was on my mind, obviously. He was in a situation where ppl tell ghost stories, etc. However, the synchronicity, as far as the time, was sort of weird... and I didn't know this kid was going to "see" a ghost. The other cabins didn't have the same thing happen.

[MonkeyFunk]

74. No

atoms were never supernatural.

That we don't know everything doesn't mean that everything imaginable is real.

[RainDog]

87. maybe I should have said

atoms were considered an inferior explanation of the world that was not consistent with scientific thought for a couple of thousand years in western society...

that was where my use of the term "supernatural" came from, as in... not part of the natural world.. not the correct explanation of the natural world.

Atoms were considered an inferior explanation of the world... not the correct view by the leading intellectuals of the day, (the day being classical Greek society) and were, in fact, viewed as ridiculous by the educated ppl in ancient Greece. Aristotle's view of matter was accepted over Democritus' idea of atoms- and Aristotle's was accepted because he was considered such an important mind and b/c he could prove his pov (four elements) by reproducible experiments. (Democritus had a theory but no "proof.")

Aristotle's scientific explanation was the accepted view in western society until the 17th century - or until the technology existed to verify a theory that was dismissed for thousands of years. By this, I do not mean to say that "the supernatural" is a theory. I mean to say that, like germs too, say, "the supernatural" may be a phenomena that we do not yet understand but things we may term supernatural may exist... tho not as we understand them now.

the point I was trying to make is that science isn't always right - but it makes adjustments based upon reproducible experiments. At the time that Democritus proposed the idea of an atom, there were no atomic microscopes.

by noting this, again, I'm not saying I believe in ghosts or supernatural whatevers. I am skeptical in the extreme. I am saying, however, that I do not think that modern humans know everything there is to know about the composition and workings of matter in the universe and to assume that we do is... unscientific. that does not mean it is therefore okay to view epilepsy as demon possession, for example.

[MonkeyFunk]

90. Correct - science isn't always right

but it MOVES toward rightness pretty consistently.

People have believed in ghosts for thousands of years, yet we're no closer today to proving their existence or explaining them than we were when we lived in caves. So maybe after all that time, people should get the idea that they don't really exist.

[RainDog]

118. you know, I never said I believe in ghosts...

I just said I wasn't closed to the idea that something we do not yet understand is a part of our material existence. okay?

[davsand]

52. Yep, sure do.

You can call me batshit crazy if you want to but I was in a guest house cooking breakfast for my family and I SAW a guy walk out of a wall. I watched him walk across a room and back out thru the opposite wall. Dude was wearing a red plaid shirt and a hunting cap.

I know how it sounds and I am dead serious when I say I saw it happen.

There is a lot more going on around us than we realize. I dunno what it Is exactly, but I will remind you all that had anyone tried to talk about TV or even electricity 300 years ago they would have been running a risk of being called batshit crazy because nobody KNEW about radio waves or the ability to harness electricity. Now it is all no big deal.

Maybe there will be a day when communication with "dead" people will also be no big deal because somebody in a lab someplace figured out how to do it...



Laura

[Orrex]

54. Show me the ectoplasm

No credibly recorded event in history is better explained by a supernatural phenomenon than a natural one. Eyewitness testimony, no matter how heartfelt, does not qualify as credible recording of an event.

Even in cases in which the cause is unknown, there is no evidence whatsoever that the cause is supernatural.


This isn't a matter of claiming to know everything; it's simply a statement of fact. Dissenters are welcome to cite examples of credibly documented instances of supernatural phenomena.

[Fox Mulder]

55. EVPs?

[Orrex]

57. What about them?

Basically, here's how the logic goes:

Given: Something appears on a tape that sounds more or less like a voice (I think you'll agree that the quality/clarity of alleged EVP's varies greatly)
Given: A mundane source for that voice is not immediately apparent

Conclusion: Golly, it must be a ghost!


The best tentative explanation offered for why EVP's are evidence of anything supernatural is that ghosts might somehow interact with the electromagnetic spectrum and thereby be able to interact with recording devices. But this explanation is laughable on its face: it presupposes that ghosts exist, that they interact with the EM spectrum, and that they can directly affect electronic devices. These are three unverified hypotheses that are combined and put forth as an explanation for an event that is intended to verify the existence of the ghost in the first place.

That's classic circular reasoning.

[Fox Mulder]

59. Okay...

so if there is no one in the same room (or house) that you are in, and you record these EVPs, and you did not make the voices heard on the tapes, then how do you explain it?

[Orrex]

61. Are you kidding?

First of all, it is not the responsibility of the skeptic to refute every claim; it is the responsibility of the claimant to support it. My failure to explain such-and-such phenomenon has no bearing on whether or not it is indeed a supernatural event. Instead, the claimant must demonstrate that the event is supernatural.

However, here are ten alternative explanations, off the top of my head:

1. Prior recoding incompletely erased (less a factor in digital devices)
2. Data present on device prior to first use (HP flash drives, anyone?)
3. Interference by third-party source (radio, etc.)
4. False-echo artifact of the recording (less a factor in digital devices: I used to get this when I made mix-tapes in the 80's)
5. A sound not heard in real-time but noticed on playback (voice transmitted through wall, through pipe, etc.)
6. A sound not noticed in real-time but discovered on playback (a passing car, a conversation outside, a muttering to oneself, etc.)
7. Post hoc recording dubbed onto device, either intentionally (a pious hoax or mischievous prank) or otherwise (innocent error)
8. Ambiguous sound incorrectly identified as a voice (a whispery rasp inferred to be saying "hello")
9. Miscellaneous glitch during recording or playback (e.g., general equipment failure)
10. Mischievous prank by fellow researcher during recording (e.g., whispering into the device)

You may object that several or all of these seem unlikely, but I submit that every one of them has a demonstrable precedent in reality and is thus far more likely than any as yet wholly non-demonstrated supernatural event. That is, you can't claim that the alleged EVP is evidence of the supernatural unless every natural explanation has been shown to be impossible; otherwise, any of them is a more likely explanation than is a claim of supernatural influence.

I've had this discussion previously, and at this point someone usually objects that I am going out of my way not to believe, or else that I am going to extreme lengths to make the claimant's task impossible. In fact, neither of these is accurate; I am simply requiring a level of certainty far in excess of anything offered by any paranormal researcher to date, including the vaunted ladies and gentlemen of TAPS.

[StarryNite]

70. I have gotten EVP.

There is no normal explanation for the whistling, laughing, and talking that I have captured. Are they ghosts? I don't know. Perhaps beings in a different dimension and not sounds from people who have died.

[MorningGlow]

56. But

If we don't yet have to tools to "credibly document" supernatural phenomena, why does that mean it doesn't exist?

[Orrex]

58. It doesn't. But that's not what I'm claiming

I'm not claiming that supernatural phenomena don't exist (though honesty compels me to disclaim that I do not believe in them).

Instead, I am pointing out that there is no credible evidence whatsoever that supernatural phenomena exist, and I have invited believers to cite examples.

[MorningGlow]

60. But

That's a no-win argument. So you're saying that supernatural phenomena does not/will not exist until we humans come up with a device for measuring it? Isn't that a little self-centered? (Not you--humanity.)

[Orrex]

62. Not at all!

It does exist or it doesn't exist, period. Human devices have nothing to do with it. I'm making no claims in this regard, other than my disclaimer (above).


My claim is simply that we humans have no evidence that supernatural phenomena exist, despite centuries of testimony by believers. Anyone who claims otherwise (not you, but anyone!) must subject this evidence to objective scrutiny.


(note: I used the term "believers" in a way that I acknowledge may be seen as derogatory, but that's not my intent here. I'm using it simply as a means of referring to people who believe in the supernatural)

[johnnie]

66. "we humans have no evidence that supernatural phenomena exist"

"We" just haven't advanced far enough yet.

I gave up long ago trying to "prove" anything like this. I personally know what I can hear, feel and see and that's fine by me. The way I look at it now is that some people don't have the ability to "pick up" on anything they can't see and that's just the way it is.

I think one day science will evolve enough to understand these things, but in my opinion it is way behind even scratching the surface of it. Science is cool and all, but to me it isn't the end-all of existence.

[Orrex]

67. Forgive me, but even that 's likewise circular

"We" just haven't advanced far enough yet.

In other words:

Q: How do we know that the supernatural exists?
A: Because we haven't advanced far enough to detect it!

:wtf:

I gave up long ago trying to "prove" anything like this. I personally know what I can hear, feel and see and that's fine by me.

I would be greatly interested to hear how you identify a phenomenon as supernatural, when your only interaction with it is based upon your mundane senses. If, instead, you posit some kind of "supernatural" sense, then I would love to hear what evidence you have of it, outside of what you infer to be the ability to sense the supernatural (which is, again, circular (paraphrased here): "I know that the supernatural exists because I sense it with my supernatural sense, and I know that my supernatural sense exists because I sense the supernatural with it.")


I have no doubt that a great many people now and throughout history have believed with all of their hearts in supernatural phenomena. But in the absense of any evidence that these phenomena exist, outside of personal testimony, it is irresponsible to conclude that they do, in fact, exist.

[johnnie]

68. I didn't say it exists because "we" haven't proved it

I'm just saying that a lot of people point to the sciences and say it doesn't exist because it hasn't been shown to scientifically exist.

My experiences with things like this has been going on for decades and for me to put it up on here would take a long time. As I said, I feel no need to try and prove these things any longer because the people who don't believe probably never will unless they experience it for themselves and maybe even after that they won't.

I've come to the conclusion that not everybody is capable of it and that's just the way it is.

[Orrex]

69. Well, then you're arguing against a point I'm not making

I'm just saying that a lot of people point to the sciences and say it doesn't exist because it hasn't been shown to scientifically exist.

Sure, a lot of people do that, but that's not what I'm doing. I'm saying that there's no evidence for it whatsoever. I am also asserting my disbelief in the supernatural, which is different from making a categorical statement about its existence/nonexistence.

As I said, I feel no need to try and prove these things any longer because the people who don't believe probably never will unless they experience it for themselves and maybe even after that they won't.

I respect that this is your sincere feeling, but alas it is functionally indistinguishable from crossing one's arms and saying "hmf!"

Often, you will find no one more eager to believe than a skeptic, but the skeptic knows the seductive danger of eager belief, and so he or she requires very convincing evidence, far beyond one person's "feelings" or a spooky voice on a tape.

[johnnie]

96. "but alas it is functionally indistinguishable from crossing one's arms and saying "hmf!""

Not exactly. I just know that I have never convinced a skeptic that this shit exists and it wasn't until the skeptics that I knew experienced things themselves. Many of them where in my parent's house.

I post on these types of threads because I don't mind talking about this stuff, but I don't think there is any way I can convince any skeptics here that it's real. I do get a bit frustrated when people belittle others for believing, but those people have the right to do that if they wish. On the other hand, I sort of laugh at them because I have no doubt whatsoever that there is something beyond what they want to believe and I figure they will find that out one day.

I have no problem with skeptics, I think everyone should be a little skeptical about many things.

[Orrex]

100. Fair enough, but...

I post on these types of threads because I don't mind talking about this stuff, but I don't think there is any way I can convince any skeptics here that it's real.

Much the same thing can be said by skeptics who have grown weary of trying to explain to over-eager believers why a blip on a photograph is not evidence of the afterlife (I'm not referring to you in that example, but to my experience with believers). Having gone down that road many times, I know that it's almost impossible to get a believer to examine an event objectively.

I sort of laugh at them because I have no doubt whatsoever that there is something beyond what they want to believe and I figure they will find that out one day.

Well, pig-headed denial (by skeptics or otherwise) is intellectual dishonesty; if the evidence is shown to exist, then a reasonable person must accept it. Evidence trumps (non)belief every time.

But you do realize, don't you, that your own perceptions, however real-seeming or profound, are ultimately nothing more than anecdote if they can't be corroborated with empirical evidence? I accept that you have experienced phenomena that you identify as supernatural, but I do not accept that these events truly are supernatural, based on your testimony.

In now way does this imply dishonesty, delusion, or foolishness on your part; it simply means that--in my opinion--you have misinterpreted your perceptions of these events.

[johnnie]

102. True enough, I don't think that what I have experienced is any real proof to anyone

And I am also skeptical of every little blip on photographs or "orb" photos and some other things people try to use as evidence. Trust me, when I watch "Ghost Hunters" or other such shows I do a lot of "Pfftt"s" :) Not that I am some "expert", but I do realize that some people will go for the supernatural explanation first if that's what they are looking for.

[MorningGlow]

109. Okay

"Centuries of testimony"--does that count for nothing? That many years (and more), where people have encountered supernatural phenomena--likely millions of people during that time--and it's all to be rejected because nobody has produced a ghost on a leash for scientists to poke with a stick? Are those millions of people all to be discounted as batshit crazy believers in a falsehood?

If you want, I can give you a personal experience that I have not been able to explain by any logical means. I have shared this before in the Lounge, and a Lounger said he would debunk my story, but never did. I'm not surprised. If you are up to the challenge, it's yours! :hi:

[Orrex]

111. In a word, yes.

Lacking any independent evidence (i.e., not based on testimony), a million people who say that something exists are no more correct than one person who says so. If the event is mundane (such as "we saw eagles perched on the fountain") then testimony is sufficient, because the event is not so extraordinary as to require more stringent corroboration.

But if the event is paranormal (such as "we saw something that proves not only that the soul exists, but that it persists after corporeal death, and that it can interact with us and our tape recorder, from beyond the grave") then testimony simply isn't up to the task of proving it. Sorry, but that's how it goes.

Also, it's imprecise to lump together the alleged millions who have allegedly encountered supernatural phenomena. At most, we have little pockets of people who have encountered separate alleged phenomena, and at different times.


I would be greatly interested to hear your story. However, I must repeat that it is not the duty of the skeptic to explain or refute every claim of the supernatural; it is up to the claimant to corroborate the story.

[MorningGlow]

113. Hey, that's not fair!

So if a million people say they saw an eagle perched on a fountain, those testimonies have to be taken at face value, but if a million people say they saw or heard from a ghost, those testimonies are to be discounted? Double standard! Ghostism! Help help we're bein' repressed!
:rofl:

I will also disagree with you regarding the duties of a skeptic; if a skeptic doesn't believe a paranormal story, said skeptic had darn well better give a "logical" reason for the event.

Check your PM in a few! :hi:

[Orrex]

119. I'll check my PM in a moment. In the meantime...

So if a million people say they saw an eagle perched on a fountain, those testimonies have to be taken at face value, but if a million people say they saw or heard from a ghost, those testimonies are to be discounted? Double standard! Ghostism! Help help we're bein' repressed!

LOL! Nicely done, especially in light of the recent discussions on DU as to the nature of "sexism." Well done! :rofl:

Briefly stated, there is nothing really unusual about an eagle perching on a fountain; the event has many precedents and thus readily conforms to the basics of mundane, natural reality. For the claim to be true, we need the following to be true:

1. Eagles exist (the bird, in this context, rather than the band or the football team)
2. A fountain exists and is a thing
3. Eagles perch on things

Barring extinction, none of these necessary components is exotic or without precedent, and I daresay that it is generally agreed that they are true.

No such established and verifiable criteria exist for ghosts. There isn't even widespread agreement as to what they might be, even among believers in the paranormal!

Someone might object at this point that "millions of witnesses" would qualify as such verification. Okay--let's see that example, and we'll discuss it.

I will also disagree with you regarding the duties of a skeptic; if a skeptic doesn't believe a paranormal story, said skeptic had darn well better give a "logical" reason for the event.

Why should that be the case? The paranormal claimant acts, in effect, as the prosecution, while the skeptic is the defense. The burden of proof rests upon the prosecution--the paranormal claimant--who must verify the alleged event to some level of certainty. That doesn't mean "beyond a shadow of a doubt," but it does mean that, at the very least, the paranormal explanation must be more likely than any natural explanation. And before an explanation can be "more likely," the underlying phenomenon must be shown to exist.

The reason for this, again, is precedent. Natural explanations have a very long history of repeated independent confirmation, while supernatural claims do not. It is in this way that witness testimony is insufficient, because independent verification is impossible, lacking other evidence.

Additionally, even a skeptic who offers a reasonable good-faith explanation for an event is, in my experience, seldom believed. Either the explanation is dismissed outright, or the skeptic is accused of being "closed minded," or the like. This is a function of human nature, and the more fervently the believer believes, the more difficult it is to get her or him to reconsider her or his beliefs.


I'm off to check my inbox!

[BlueJazz]

63. No...at least what most people think Ghosts are....

[PassingFair]

64. No. n/t

[emilyg]

65. Yes and yes.

[Lady Freedom]

71. Haven't you seen my MySpace page?

http://www.myspace.com/ad_hoyt

[The Animator]

73. If I am not mistaken, the OP asked if we BELIEVED in ghosts

Not whether or not we could prove they exist. I have not had any personal experiences that I can recall. I've heard the personal experiences of people I know, and those are credible enough for me.

Do I believe in ghosts? I'm sitting on the fence for this one. I'll probably never truly be certain unless I have a personal experience of my own. I won't however, rule out the possibility.

Anyone with a thorough enough understanding of science knows that there are no absolutes. Every truth we've ever learned through science is vulnerable to a better explanation. Every breakthrough in science has occurred by challenging the prevailing theories. Every advancement of our understanding is the result replacing old explanations with more accurate, more complete theories.

The Catholic Church was not the only supporter of the idea that the Earth was the center of the Universe. It was the generally accepted scientific model as well, until Galileo's hypothesis challenged that preconception. Galileo's discovery, though profound, was wrought with inconsistencies. Then Newton came along and challenged Galileo's model with a more refined one.

Nothing is ever ruled out. Even if we are 99.9999999999% sure that what we have is a definitive answer, there is always that .0000000001% chance that eventually, our "definitive answer" will get knocked on it's ass by a better explanation, or in light of other related discoveries, our 99.9999999999% certain truth is actually completely wrong.

In conclusion, though I've never had any ghost related experiences, I have had personal experiences that would also fall into the "seriously unexplainable" category. If I can accept one outrageous phenomena, it is not beyond reason to remain open to the possibility of others.

[MonkeyFunk]

75. but personal experience

turns out to be a lousy gauge of what's real and what's not. People frequently misinterpet signals, people suffer from delusions, people exaggerate and lie. People are hard-wired to find patterns, often where none exist.

Millions "experience" the God of the Bible as real, and millions "experience" Allah as real and millions more "experience" other deities. Many have experienced fairies and leprechauns and banshees and countless other supernatural beings, and still no evidence of their existence has been shown.

That's why the scientific method is preferable to simple human experience.

[TZ]

76. Well if there is one thing science has shown

Is that human perception is terribly flawed. Look at how many eyewitness are fooled into misremembering/misinterpreting things.
We have terms for optical illusions and audio illusions for good reason. The human brain is quite capable of observing and misinterpreting. Thats why I would like to see truly OBJECTIVE evidence before I accept the paranormal, esp. with ghosts. Plain human observation just does not give anything better than anaedoctal evidence. Trained observation at best might be better but most people aren't trained that way. And the people who look for ghosts generally want to find them, so there is an inborn bias to begin with. In other words, they are more likely to ascribe a mysterious creak to a ghost rather than the house settling or the settling of pipes.

[mainegreen]

83. Yup.

I once witnesses an assault from a distance. The purps were throwing glass at a friend of mine, then they got into there car and drove off. Less than 15 minutes later I had to describe the car to the cops. I said it was a 57 Chevy, white with cherry red paneling and hardtop. In actuality it was a Blue Impala from the 70s.

Memory. It remembers what it wants to!

[Lady Freedom]

80. I will take any excuse to plug my page.

I'm evil that way!
That's http://www.myspace.com/ad_hoyt

[Biscottiii]

77. YES! Had a couple of experiences, friendly ones, but it turned me into a believer

Just because mankind thinks it is unfailing and knowledgeable doesn't mean it actually is. Too late tonight, but maybe this thread will appear so I can check it out tomorrow.

[RebelOne]

78. I am an atheist, but I have had a couple of experiences

that make me wonder. I'm sure there are perfectly rational explanations.

[Marrah_G]

84. I look at it very differently

I think one can believe in the "supernatural" and still be an atheist. I know I personally believe that these types of phenomena will some day have an explanation through science.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

79. No

[Marrah_G]

82. Yes and yes

I believe there is much we have yet to discover through science and research.

I believe one can be a scientist and still believe there is much we don't know yet.

I do not equate the "supernatural" with religion.

[MonkeyFunk]

91. How much more science will it take?

Nobody can even prove a force exists associated with ghosts, and they've been looking a very long time.
It would require rewriting the basic tenets of physics and biology. The more we learn, the less likely it seems that we have a spirit that survives death.

In just the last 70 years we've developed the atom bomb, gone to the moon, discovered DNA, understood plate tectonics, and much more. And yet we don't have ONE piece of evidence pointing toward the existence of ghosts that didn't exist 4,000 years ago.

[StrongBad]

97. By the nature of what it means to be supernatural, science is powerless to prove or disprove

By definition, the supernatural is phenomena which cannot be observed through traditional means of observation and experience - which is what the traditional scientific method relies upon. So I don't know why you would even seek to put the concept of supernatural under traditional scientific and logical scrutiny. It's the complete wrong tool to use in the situation.

What it basically comes down to is belief. Now I don't want to get into an epistemological discussion as to what it means to "know" something, but I'm pretty sure that those who have experienced or claim to believe in the supernatural feel that one can "know" something solely by having what they consider a justified belief in it.

So why try to destruct that person's subjective position by shouting science and reason? It is pointless to do so as it is the wrong means of inquiry to use in such a discussion anyway.

[MonkeyFunk]

99. but after all the science that's ever been done

there's no evidence that ANYTHING is "supernatural".


And is it pointless? I think science and rationalism have accomplished a lot. Supernaturalism? Not so much.

[StrongBad]

101. Of course there is no scientific evidence that anything is supernatural

Because, as I said in my initial post, if there were anything supernatural to begin with science would be useless in proving it - the reason being because science is concerned with inquiring and finding facts about our current being in the world - the "natural" world. Anything that were to exist in a "super" natural reality would be by definition beyond the grasp of scientific inquiry as we understand it in this point of human history.

Understand that what I'm saying here is not an argument for or against the supernatural, just a statement saying that because science can't prove something doesn't mean it therefore 100% doesn't exist.

And regarding rationalism and science, sure they have provided a lot of advancements in the 20th century that have made tremendous improvements to our quality of life, but also my opinion is that they also provided new problems and haven't come close to solving all our old ones. So to put an unending faith in science seems to me just as over the top as one who rejects it fully in favor of a literal interpretation of a spiritual text.

[MonkeyFunk]

103. There's no reason why science

couldn't detect a phenomenon whose basis is supernatural.

A simple example would be ESP. Under controlled settings, it's never been shown to exist. Forget how it's supposed to work - the mere EXISTENCE of it is undetectable.

[Marrah_G]

98. Who knows?

I don't have the answers. I would like to have the answers.

[LanternWaste]

85. Being that I have a brain...

Being that I have a brain as does the rest of humanity, and being that we know so very little about the world and the universe around us, and being that we discover absolutely amazing things almost every day so far outside of the layman's world-view, I'm left to conclude that the possibly that spirits exist is greater than the possibility spirits do not exist.

[MonkeyFunk]

92. That argument argues that anything we can imagine

is more likely to exist than to not exist. Do you think that's the case?

Are leprechauns more or less likely to exist? Unicorns? Valhalla? The Flying Spaghetti Monster?

[LanternWaste]

93. Yeah, chief.. I believe leprechauns exist. Better now?

If the universe is infinite, then the possibilities are also.

the only point in my original response is that there is so much we don't know, I'm not ready to discount the possibility.


Yeah, chief.. I believe leprechauns exist. Better now?

[MonkeyFunk]

95. No need to be snarky

I was discussing your argument, not you. You used the fact that we don't know everything to conclude that there's a greater likelihood of ghosts existing than not existing. I'm pointing out the same argument makes the case for leprechauns being more likely to exist than not exist.

It's long been an error that humans make to create a "god of the gaps". To say that what we don't understand contains the most unlikely things. But over time, those gaps get smaller and smaller and smaller, and people are still overloading them.

Ghosts would have to occupy a pretty small gap that would utterly revolutionize everything we know about the universe. How likely is that?

[Vidar]

112. Good answer. I concur.

[Firespirit]

88. Yes and yes

I have no ghost experience, but I -- along with my mother -- seem to have an ability for limited divination. I have had two automobile accidents in my life, and both times, she woke up that morning with the awareness/dread that an accident would occur. She never had false positives.

And for myself, about a year before my grandfather died, I had a very realistic dream of the events that would occur after his death. My grandmother was sitting on a couch, flanked by me and a sister of mine, trying to eat a sandwich and saying things to us. When he did die, this exact scene played out, down to the clothes she wore, the specific things that she and my sister said, and the sandwich -- which was pushed on her by someone else, not me, so it wasn't me trying to make the dream come true. It was the most unsettling deja vu I've ever had.

I have no idea what the "purpose" of the dream could have been. There were no dangers either in the dream or in life, nothing to warn me against. There was very little that I even could control. When I woke up I was strangely calm about it, despite it being about death. I felt what I assume my mother felt on the days I had the wrecks, a certainty that this would happen and I had been given a glimpse of it for unknown reasons.

I've had one other dream in my life where I felt that way waking up, and it hasn't played out in life. It occurred a little over a month ago. I honestly don't want this one to be real, but we'll see.

[regularguy]

89. Nope. Just the regular natural. NT

[SteppingRazor]

106. Course not.

I have never experienced anything -- not for one brief second of my existence -- that I would ascribe to supernatural causes, and I find explanations for unexplained events that rely on the supernatural to be poorly reasoned at best, deliberately falsified at worst.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

107. No, but I like to pretend I do sometimes....

Same thing with the morning horoscope. I don't believe in it, but I like to read it and pretend it's real anyways.

I did have one experience. I was on Gettysburg battlefield with my dad. We were all alone, near the spot where the Southern troops were situated. All of a sudden, out of nowhere, I see a man on horseback, dressed in uniform gallop into the woods.

More than likely, it was just a re-enactor on his way to an interactive living history presentation. But I'd like to think it was a ghost.

[last_texas_dem]

108. I do not have a positive belief

in ghosts or the supernatural, but I'm basically someone who is not going to flat-out deny the possibility of the existence of just about anything. I'm pretty much agnostic across the board.

I've never had any sort of supernatural experience that I know of. The closest that I have come is that I have had feelings of deja vu several times, particularly experiences where I had dreamed the night before something that I ended up doing during a day. I'm sure there are a variety of reasonable explanations for these feelings (sometimes I think it just comes from doing the same routine day after day- it's not too surprising if you feel like you've "been there, done that" when that's the case!) but, like I said, pretty much the only thing that I'm certain about is the uncertainty of everything.

[I Have A Dream]

110. Yes, I believe in both.

No, I've not experienced either.

[applegrove]

114. Nope.

[Critters2]

115. No. Not ghosts.

My obedience instructor can't figure out why I won't take the beagle to an "animal communicator". After all, I'm the pastor, so I should believe in nonsense like that, right?! Wrong.

Not ghosts, not animal communicators, not much of that sort.

[Lorien]

120. No. Dead is dead. There is no afterlife

My uncle died for nearly a half hour and was brought back. He didn't experience anything-he just didn't exist while he was dead. I think that the "white light" phenominon has already been proven to be the brains defense against the death process. It can be replicated in a lab, after all.

I figure that I didn't mind not being alive before I was born, so I sure won't mind it after I'm dead!

[Lethe]

121. does animism count as supernatural?

i am mostly a pagan atheist animist. i could explain that to you if you had a lot of time and a good bag of weed.