Ghosts Do you believe (Page 2)
adamleath27: gohst are scary as hell and can harm you, then again theres the chill bump presence ??? of good memories, as of chaneling. i guess depending on a disturbance......what was that big episode about the grandma who left the ladder in the pool and the little girl drowned and got blamed for child neglect cause she went out partying,i think that baby a goust.the things floridians do???i watched one court issue and they were doing this creepy gohst murder thing view of the camera from the steps of the court to the jury box and as soon as the judge started to talk his microphone stopped working, thats all it took for me to change the channel.........whats the other "myth" besides marry rothe, isn't something like gar-cia.and another word is said like "beetlejuice,beetlejuice,beetlejuice"
LiptonCambell: I think what kills me for most of those "ghost hunter" shows is the "reenactments"- where they have someone dress up as the ghost for the camera. That kind of forethought feels disingenuous. I can't get the image out of my mind, that after(or before?) they are "contacted" by a ghost, they go through the room in a 80 year old dress and a wig....How come you never get any astounding footage or information when they film it THAT time?
Don't ghosts interact with you when you gotta wig on?
Geoff: There was a 'ghost hunter' programme in the UK which was felt to breach regulations on documentaries.
A British court of law stated that if the plaintiff didn't realise that it was fiction then they didn't deserve protection under English law.
Which I lol'd at. A country that still officially recognises blasphemy as a crime doesn't recognise ghosts.
cidemevolI: Why is it that those that believe are always asked to prove why they do? Why do those that don't believe feel so self-righteous and arrogant in their skepticism?
Geoff: Because the burden of proof always lies with those whom make the assertion of existence.
If I said I had a million pounds in my back pocket, the burden of proof would be on me to demonstrate the fact, not on you to prove that I don't.
Loveylilthang: Maybe if something i couldnt for the life in me explaiin happened then i might believe but i doubt that could ever happen cause almost every thing can be defined and explained.....just sayin
cidemevolI: To use the statement that it always lies with those whom believe to prove it is the arrogance I am talking about. You use a statement that easily backs up your assertion. Can you prove they don't exist? To be honest I don't give a rats whether people believe like I do or not. Just cannot get over the arrogance of skeptic.
cidemevolI: @lovelylilthang...I noticed that you used almost. So you are at least openminded even if you don't believe.
Geoff: The lack of a single shred of objective evidence says a lot.
The fact that people who have encountered ghosts tend to have similar personality traits (much as 'alien abductees have similar personality traits), and the fact that believers don't seem to understand the potential peculiarities of the human mind all combine to make me rather secure in my opinion.
That isn't arrogance, it is confidence.
LiptonCambell: >>>Can you prove they don't exist?
"proving non-existence: when an arguer cannot provide the evidence for his claims, he may challenge his opponent to prove it doesn't exist (e.g., prove God doesn't exist; prove UFO's haven't visited earth, etc.). Although one may prove non-existence in special limitations, such as showing that a box does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence, or non-existence out of ignorance. !!One cannot prove something that does not exist!!. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims."
In short, people who make extraordinary claims have to present extraordinary proof. Claiming that I have to prove you wrong in order for your logic to be flawed is, frankly, a severe mistake in logic. It just doesn't work like that...
cidemevolI: I thing I notice is that skeptics on anything have one similar personality trait... They are very, very closed minded. Doesn't matter what proof may be offered...countless photos and video footage, documented cases by professionals eg. Doctors, Scientists, Law Enforcement, Military etc.... they will still ask for proof. Why are skeptics so determined to prove that those that believe in supernatural phenomena are wrong? Why are they so sure they are right? Arrogance and narrow or closed mindedness.
Geoff: I am far from close minded. I just have a knack for spotting genuine evidence rather than wishful thinking.
But nor am I gullible. If there was photographic or filmed evidence that could be authenticated then there would be no debate.
If eye-witness testimony was so reliable, novice barristers working for the defence would not have such an easy time dismissing it. Nor would medical trials need to be conducted on a double-blind basis.
Should proper evidence present itself, then I would accept it. Until then, ghosts remain in the same drawer as psychics, alien visitors, homoeopathy, and angels - the drawer marked, "Blah".
Geoff: And the degeneration of your arguments to name calling has lost you the right of talking to me.
cidemevolI: You actually have a knack for being arrogant as that sentence proved in the first paragraph. What it boils down to is that you do not want to believe. And as such will ignore evidence. By the way...I am an eye-witness. What does that make me? Also photos and CCTV cam evidence with no evidence of tampering. But of course that will be ignored.
Those who don't want to believe will not believe no matter what as they tend to be very closed minded no matter what the justification.
LiptonCambell: >>>What it boils down to is that you do not want to believe.
And, ironically enough, your statements have made it clear- you believe because you WANT to believe- not because the evidence is sufficient. It isn't.
>>> And as such will ignore evidence.
HA! Show me the best of your "evidence"
>>>By the way...I am an eye-witness. What does that make me?
It says that you are close-minded on the subject.
cidemevolI: I believe because I have witnessed it. Seen it with my own eyes. You are so determined to be 'right' that you will disagree with any evidence as is evident by your arrogance here is saying I am close minded because I am an eye-witness. I can say the same because you are not one.
I have seen a ghost. How do I know? Because it was not anyone I knew, not anyone who was in the house for sure at the time. But can you prove they don't exist? By trying to get those who believe to prove their belief you are putting them on the defensive position without having to prove your own belief. Easy to debunk when you are given all the advantage of not having to prove anything. Anyone can ignore evidence and proof, make claims that it doesn't satisfy them. Why should anyone care whether you believe or not? What does it do? Feed a weak ego that needs to get off on playing intellectual. You choose not to believe. In the scheme of things it doesn't matter if you do or not. The truth is the truth even if the whole world believes it a lie. Ghandi said that.
Instead of me proving they do exist...you prove they don't. But I can guess what you will do. Disect my post and prove your arrogance by veiled inference on the irrationality of my knowledge. Not belief, knowledge of what I saw.
cidemevolI: I know every single claim is not true. Many, many hoaxes have been uncovered. But when there is no known explanation then logic dictates it to be true. When all evidence points to there not being any other explanation.
ExcellentOwl: I think the problem is that people don't try hard enough to find logical explanations for things. Just because it isn't obvious doesn't make it paranormal.
cidemevolI: And just becuase a logical explanation isn't found doesn't mean that people didn't try hard enough either.
LiptonCambell: Again, level with me man- i am not "an eyewitness"- I do not have the fortune of having ghosts showing up to have chats with me- so while you don't feel its a leap of faith, i do.
How do you determine who is telling the truth, and who is just making shit up? Can you tell the difference? Is it possible some of those people who make extraordinary claims- and you believe them- are lying about what they witnessed?
cidemevolI: I never said any ghost had a chat with me. I said I have seen one. A difference. The same questions you ask of me can be asked of you as well. How do you determine who is telling the truth, and who is just making shit up? Can you tell the difference?
It is up to you whether you choose to believe or not. I just don't like being questioned on my honesty in what I have seen.
LiptonCambell: You see, I determine it by strictly by a basis of evidence. I do not accept anecdotal evidence. And pretty much all evidence for "ghosts" are anecdotal.
I ask again- How do you determine who is tell the truth, and who is just making shit up? Do you have any method to figuring out who is lying, who is hoaxing, who is mentally ill, who is simply confused as to what they saw or have a religious zeal that requires what they believed they saw to be true- or do you accept all claims as truth?
Clearly where we separate is on this key issue- help clarify the issue. How do you tell if someone is bamboozling you?
>>>I just don't like being questioned on my honesty in what I have seen.
I'm not questioning your experiences. I'm asking how you judge truth in the stories you read about ghosts(they must be stories- you've refused to present any real evidence aside from your own stories- but still claim the evidence exists )
cidemevolI: No interest to me if you believe in ghosts or not. Your choice. As for me...Why I choose to believe a story or not is really my business. I don't need to prove anything as it is my own personal view and belief. Whether you think ghosts exist or not has no impact on my life. All you are looking for is a chance to..what...show how 'intellectually superior' you are compared to someone who 'cannot' show you 'proof'. Not interested. Feed your ego off of someone else.