Diane Abbott, Time To Forgive And...
News4 mins ago
Do you believe in ghosts?
142 Answers
This question is to everyone? If you have seen one, i'd love to hear about it??
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gamergirl80. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I'd never accuse anyone of lying or attention-seeking because they claim to have seen a ghost. I do believe that people are entirely genuine when they recount the phenomena they've 'seen'.
But that doesn't quite get round the fact that the rational basis for 'ghosts' would require a rewriting of many fundamental scientific laws.
I hate to be a boring old cynic. But a ghostly figure could walk through the wall of my lounge, have a conversation with me and then disappear up the chimney and I'd still believe what I'd 'seen' was caused by something else - particularly when they are so many far more plausible reasons for it than the existence of spirits.
In fact, given what we know about the human mind, surely it's far easier to believe that you're hallucinating, dreaming, glimpsing something else than to believe that magical fairy-like figures roam the land? Why is it so insulting to accept that the mind doesnt always give it to us straight?
Certain houses are prone to noises, unusual lighting/shadow, electrical failings. And certain instances don't lend themself to an easy explanation - but jumping to the conclusion that there's something supernatural going on is too easy.
I think the reason that people equate ghosts with religion is because they're founded on a premise that lacks scientific rigour. Or possibly the fact that sense can be deceptive.
I don't believe in ghosts or god. But the claim that 'If you'd seen what I'd seen, then you'd think differently about ghosts' sounds similar to someone with faith saying 'I can feel Jesus in my heart. If you felt what I feel, you'd believe too.'
But that doesn't quite get round the fact that the rational basis for 'ghosts' would require a rewriting of many fundamental scientific laws.
I hate to be a boring old cynic. But a ghostly figure could walk through the wall of my lounge, have a conversation with me and then disappear up the chimney and I'd still believe what I'd 'seen' was caused by something else - particularly when they are so many far more plausible reasons for it than the existence of spirits.
In fact, given what we know about the human mind, surely it's far easier to believe that you're hallucinating, dreaming, glimpsing something else than to believe that magical fairy-like figures roam the land? Why is it so insulting to accept that the mind doesnt always give it to us straight?
Certain houses are prone to noises, unusual lighting/shadow, electrical failings. And certain instances don't lend themself to an easy explanation - but jumping to the conclusion that there's something supernatural going on is too easy.
I think the reason that people equate ghosts with religion is because they're founded on a premise that lacks scientific rigour. Or possibly the fact that sense can be deceptive.
I don't believe in ghosts or god. But the claim that 'If you'd seen what I'd seen, then you'd think differently about ghosts' sounds similar to someone with faith saying 'I can feel Jesus in my heart. If you felt what I feel, you'd believe too.'
Quinlad, Don't you think it's rather rash, not to say a little arrogant, to assume that you are knowledgeable enough to discount completely the possibility that something exists when, in truth, you don't know whether it does or not? This attitude reminds me of men in the past declaring that without doubt the earth was flat and was the centre of the universe. They knew it to be true - but they were wrong. Of course there's a rational explanation for many of the things people think they see and hear - floorboards creak -pipes bang and rattle - but if all the experiences recounted here - and elsewhere - are the result of delusions, then there are an awful lot of deluded people out there. Furthermore, how can we assume that the rational basis for ghosts would require the re-writing of many fundamental scientific laws? We have no idea what ghosts are, so how can we categorise them? The fact is we may think we're very clever, but we're not. In reality we're in our infancy as far as scientific discovery is concerned, and we still have much to learn.
Cont..
Cont..
..Cont
Of course it's easier to believe that you're hallucinating or dreaming - far easier than facing reality, which, at the risk of ridicule from those who think they know it all, most of the people here have been brave enough to do. I'm a fairly level-headed lady, and not prone to hallucinations or to flights of fancy, and I know what I've seen and experienced - but it can't be compared your analogy to people who 'feel' Jesus, because in my case, at least, it wasn't in the mind. Who knows - perhaps if you experienced something similar, you may, indeed, think differently. How can you say you wouldn't? You don't know how you would feel because you've never experienced it. You can think such things don't exist, but we have nothing either to prove or to disprove it, so until you have proof positive, if you're honest, and if your mind is truly open to the possibilities of new scientific discoveries - however seemingly impossible you may think they are at this moment in time, then logically, you can only say you don't know.
Of course it's easier to believe that you're hallucinating or dreaming - far easier than facing reality, which, at the risk of ridicule from those who think they know it all, most of the people here have been brave enough to do. I'm a fairly level-headed lady, and not prone to hallucinations or to flights of fancy, and I know what I've seen and experienced - but it can't be compared your analogy to people who 'feel' Jesus, because in my case, at least, it wasn't in the mind. Who knows - perhaps if you experienced something similar, you may, indeed, think differently. How can you say you wouldn't? You don't know how you would feel because you've never experienced it. You can think such things don't exist, but we have nothing either to prove or to disprove it, so until you have proof positive, if you're honest, and if your mind is truly open to the possibilities of new scientific discoveries - however seemingly impossible you may think they are at this moment in time, then logically, you can only say you don't know.
I'm a fairly level-headed lady, and not prone to hallucinations or to flights of fancy, and I know what I've seen and experienced
If we are to agree that it is possible they do exist then you must agree that there it is possible you were deluded and may not have seen a ghost since they do not exist? Or is that just not possible?
If we are to agree that it is possible they do exist then you must agree that there it is possible you were deluded and may not have seen a ghost since they do not exist? Or is that just not possible?
I'ms slightly surprised by that answer, naomi. I'm perfectly willing to accept that we don't know everything. When more evidence comes to light, I'm happy to alter my opinion. I'm not one of those ones who ridicule the flat-earth brigade: presumably not all of them mocked the round-earthers? Presumably some of them believed the earth was flat and then when more eveidence came to light they changed their opinion. Opinion doesn't have to be entrenched or partisan. Surely that's the opposite of arrogant?
I haven't completely discounted anything - I haven't completely discounted the existence of ghosts, I haven't completely discounted the existence of God, and I haven't completely discounted the existence of the Loch Ness monster either.
I'm just tend to go with evidence and on balance that points to the fact that there are far more plausible explanations. There's far more compelling evidence that we're prone to mis-seeing things, optical illusions, poor lighting, and (even with level headed young ladies with good education and lots of books) hallucination than there is for the fact that when we die a visual respesentation of our soul walks around and moves things. I'm not ridiculiing anything - that's just straightforward isn't it?
And it was in your mind, naomi. So is everything you feel, see, hear and smell. That's the the mind does. It's a processing centre - but not always reliable. When amputees 'feel' their limbs, are those limbs still there? Are they ghost limbs? Or is the mind giving them a dodgy steer?
Of course, we can only say we don't know. But you can have a firm opinion. Besides, you've already stated on this thread that ghosts do exist. The reality is you don't know do you?
I haven't completely discounted anything - I haven't completely discounted the existence of ghosts, I haven't completely discounted the existence of God, and I haven't completely discounted the existence of the Loch Ness monster either.
I'm just tend to go with evidence and on balance that points to the fact that there are far more plausible explanations. There's far more compelling evidence that we're prone to mis-seeing things, optical illusions, poor lighting, and (even with level headed young ladies with good education and lots of books) hallucination than there is for the fact that when we die a visual respesentation of our soul walks around and moves things. I'm not ridiculiing anything - that's just straightforward isn't it?
And it was in your mind, naomi. So is everything you feel, see, hear and smell. That's the the mind does. It's a processing centre - but not always reliable. When amputees 'feel' their limbs, are those limbs still there? Are they ghost limbs? Or is the mind giving them a dodgy steer?
Of course, we can only say we don't know. But you can have a firm opinion. Besides, you've already stated on this thread that ghosts do exist. The reality is you don't know do you?
On what are you basing your statement "Ghosts do not exist" ? You dont believe in them so you are spending all your time rubbishing other people's accounts of what they have experienced on here. Why not live and let live and realise that you are not able to pass judgement on the veracity of other people's experiences. One day you may see a ghost yourself, (and your current "non believer" status will not prevent this happening).
Octavius, no I do not agree that it is possible I was deluded. I know what I saw. And, here's a thought - you're telling everyone else they're deluded, but you believe in something that offers even less evidence, since no one claims to have seen it - God. Are you deluded?
Quinlad, why surprised? In reality I do know they exist because I've seen them. Apart from that, clocks and watches don't alter themselves - and that wasn't in my mind, or in my husband's mind, or in anyone else's mind. It happened - and it happened frequently.
Yes, you can have a firm opinion, but unless you've experienced it, it is just that. An opinion.
Incidentally, my husband was the number one sceptic - until we moved into that house.
Quinlad, why surprised? In reality I do know they exist because I've seen them. Apart from that, clocks and watches don't alter themselves - and that wasn't in my mind, or in my husband's mind, or in anyone else's mind. It happened - and it happened frequently.
Yes, you can have a firm opinion, but unless you've experienced it, it is just that. An opinion.
Incidentally, my husband was the number one sceptic - until we moved into that house.
Grasscarp, I wouldn�t disregard your post, all points are valid.
In the posts above, it is asserted that we cannot say they do not exist because we don�t know. By the same principle we could say that we cannot say they do exist, because we don�t know.
The disinclination I have is where you (and others) have convinced yourself that they do exist and have seen them, but will not consider they don�t and you haven�t. If it is a possibility that you haven�t seen a ghost, then it is possible you were duped by your imagination or were hallucinating etc. If it possible they do exist, then those things could have still occurred, or you genuinely saw a paranormal spectre.
Questioning experiences and looking for rational explanations, is not �rubbishing other peoples accounts of their experiences�. Since naomi has bought my religious beliefs into it, I am often told as a Christian on R&S that great claims require great evidence and that I am deluded. I can accept that a lot of people would think that, and they have valid reasons of their own for doing so.
If we were to base the point on quantities of personal experiences (earlier argument � loads of people have seen ghosts), then people who say that they have had a religious experience and have seen/heard God (yes Naomi, some people do say they have seen God), or were abducted by aliens, must be equally empirical.
Ludwig, in all honesty I think because I believe that we cannot see ghosts, that I would never see one. If I did see something that was ghostly, I would generally put it down to imagination or confused subconscious, or a floater in my contact lens. I believe in ghosts/spirits/souls in the same way I believe in God. They do exist, we just can�t see them. Am I deluded and irrational? Perhaps. I accept that is a possibility � and that is my point.
naomi, did you believe in ghosts before you saw a ghost?
In the posts above, it is asserted that we cannot say they do not exist because we don�t know. By the same principle we could say that we cannot say they do exist, because we don�t know.
The disinclination I have is where you (and others) have convinced yourself that they do exist and have seen them, but will not consider they don�t and you haven�t. If it is a possibility that you haven�t seen a ghost, then it is possible you were duped by your imagination or were hallucinating etc. If it possible they do exist, then those things could have still occurred, or you genuinely saw a paranormal spectre.
Questioning experiences and looking for rational explanations, is not �rubbishing other peoples accounts of their experiences�. Since naomi has bought my religious beliefs into it, I am often told as a Christian on R&S that great claims require great evidence and that I am deluded. I can accept that a lot of people would think that, and they have valid reasons of their own for doing so.
If we were to base the point on quantities of personal experiences (earlier argument � loads of people have seen ghosts), then people who say that they have had a religious experience and have seen/heard God (yes Naomi, some people do say they have seen God), or were abducted by aliens, must be equally empirical.
Ludwig, in all honesty I think because I believe that we cannot see ghosts, that I would never see one. If I did see something that was ghostly, I would generally put it down to imagination or confused subconscious, or a floater in my contact lens. I believe in ghosts/spirits/souls in the same way I believe in God. They do exist, we just can�t see them. Am I deluded and irrational? Perhaps. I accept that is a possibility � and that is my point.
naomi, did you believe in ghosts before you saw a ghost?
