Current Events > "Ghosts aren't real" = acceptable statement

(+) Yeah! (+)

CharlesBronson posted...

Funkydog posted...

If ghosts exist, then why is their no proof when everyone has a high def camera in their pockets?

Basic proof they don't exist right there tbh.

What an ignorant statement. Who the fuck do you think threw the brick at the goldfield? The air?

DAMN.

Consider me converted.
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Damn_Underscore posted...

When online atheists are trying to cause controversy, they are more like "God isn't real, all people who believe in God are idiots, and religion ruins the world"

the majority of people who have said this throughout history were religious people saying it about other religions.

That doesn't change what I said.

Online atheism is like its own religion in many ways.
---

Or how it's just "common sense" that Greek and Egyptian gods aren't real but this one particular God is only questionable at worst.

Damn_Underscore posted...

Tyranthraxus posted...

Damn_Underscore posted...

When online atheists are trying to cause controversy, they are more like "God isn't real, all people who believe in God are idiots, and religion ruins the world"

the majority of people who have said this throughout history were religious people saying it about other religions.

That doesn't change what I said.

Online atheism is like its own religion in many ways.

Belief is different from religion, hence why Buddist can also be considered Atheists as well. Atheism doesn't have any dogma, rituals, or practices to follow. It's simply an answer to one question.
---

Strider102 posted...

To a believer no proof is necessary.

To a skeptic no proof is possible.

No one would ever change if that was true. They would develop a worldview at like age 7 and never be swayed.

All I'm saying is things are proven or they aren't. They don't exist until they do.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Strider102 posted...

To a believer no proof is necessary.

To a skeptic no proof is possible.

No one would ever change if that was true. They would develop a worldview at like age 7 and never be swayed.

All I'm saying is things are proven or they aren't. They don't exist until they do.

But lack of evidence doesn't automatically mean something doesn't exist, whether it's God, aliens, ghosts, etc.

Not saying any of those things do or don't exist.
---

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

Or how it's just "common sense" that Greek and Egyptian gods aren't real but this one particular God is only questionable at worst.

It's really odd how all the other religions that have ever been or will be are wrong, but whatever X person follows is definitely the one.
---

Youre a serial killer!

You cant prove that!

Uhhhhh.......
---

Strider102 posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Strider102 posted...

To a believer no proof is necessary.

To a skeptic no proof is possible.

No one would ever change if that was true. They would develop a worldview at like age 7 and never be swayed.

All I'm saying is things are proven or they aren't. They don't exist until they do.

But lack of evidence doesn't automatically mean something doesn't exist, whether it's God, aliens, ghosts, etc.

Not saying any of those things do or don't exist.

Notice why our legal system is innocent until proven guilty? Because logically it makes more sense, same with any form of claims. You can't make an unfalsifiable claim with no evidence and claim it exists or its true. It either exists or it doesn't. The default stance is to be skeptical of any claim (unless you're one of those #metoo people that always wants to side with the victim in everything).
---

Strider102 posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Strider102 posted...

To a believer no proof is necessary.

To a skeptic no proof is possible.

No one would ever change if that was true. They would develop a worldview at like age 7 and never be swayed.

All I'm saying is things are proven or they aren't. They don't exist until they do.

But lack of evidence doesn't automatically mean something doesn't exist, whether it's God, aliens, ghosts, etc.

Not saying any of those things do or don't exist.

But for all intents and purposes, they do not exist. They could exist, but they may never exist. My best friend could really be a serial killer. They could be anything, but why the hell would I entertain all possibilities? I'm going to view them as a friend until they prove to me that they aren't. There's enough going on in reality as-is to worry about what could one day show up. It will be discovered through evidence-based research and experience of the senses if it's out there. The video game of your dreams could happen, but it would be a bit silly to talk about how it may or may not exist one day. Especially if it's Half-Life 4.
---

ThePrinceFish posted...

You can't prove ghosts aren't real

---

It is irrational to claim some god does not exist, ghosts do not exist, or that aliens do exist. The opposite claim for all 3 is also irrational.

That said, there is a difference between gods/ghosts and aliens. We know the latter is possible, but we don't know that either of the former is possible.

I have no problem believing in aliens. Ghosts and religion, not so much. Generally people that do believe in them are pretty harmless, though religion has a lot more of a propensity to either be super pathetic to watch or to magnify every negative aspect of a person's personality.
---

CharlesBronson posted...

PatrickMahomes posted...

You can't prove ghosts are real

what more proof do you need?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RVEw4IhAbk" data-time="&start=63

Lol reading the comments on that video people actually think that shit is real, also gullible isn't a word in the dictionary.
---

No one can prove that I'm not God tbh
---

As far as ghosts go, I've experienced things since I was a kid. Unfortunately I don't have proof and it just becomes a story. Some people believe me, some don't. It doesn't happen regularly and as such is difficult to provide proof, unlike say YouTube videos which make it seem easy. I'd personally love to have proof to show to others but I also know that no matter how authentic said evidence could potentially be, there will be those who call fake no matter what.

Even the best evidence will have detractors.
---

I went on one of those spooky tours in an old quarantine camp. The tour guide asked "Who here doesn't believe in ghosts?"

I raised my hand. One guy in the group says "There's always one of them" and I was thinking dude I'm not the weird one here.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

But for all intents and purposes, they do not exist. They could exist, but they may never exist. My best friend could really be a serial killer. They could be anything, but why the hell would I entertain all possibilities? I'm going to view them as a friend until they prove to me that they aren't. There's enough going on in reality as-is to worry about what could one day show up. It will be discovered through evidence-based research and experience of the senses if it's out there. The video game of your dreams could happen, but it would be a bit silly to talk about how it may or may not exist one day. Especially if it's Half-Life 4.

What even is this logic?
We have proof that life exists in the universe on one planet. Given the size and age of the universe, it's an easy conclusion to come to that life can exist elsewhere.
To claim without proof that aliens exist is ridiculous, but it is not anywhere on the same level as ghosts or god.
---

Darmik posted...

I went on one of those spooky tours in an old quarantine camp. The tour guide asked "Who here doesn't believe in ghosts?"

I raised my hand. One guy in the group says "There's always one of them" and I was thinking dude I'm not the weird one here.

Probably just keeping up the atmosphere for the sake of the tour tbh.
---

There are legitimate ghosts experiences. There are also tons of fabricated ones. It doesn't cancel the legitimate ones though

Hinakuluiau posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

But for all intents and purposes, they do not exist. They could exist, but they may never exist. My best friend could really be a serial killer. They could be anything, but why the hell would I entertain all possibilities? I'm going to view them as a friend until they prove to me that they aren't. There's enough going on in reality as-is to worry about what could one day show up. It will be discovered through evidence-based research and experience of the senses if it's out there. The video game of your dreams could happen, but it would be a bit silly to talk about how it may or may not exist one day. Especially if it's Half-Life 4.

What even is this logic?
We have proof that life exists in the universe on one planet. Given the size and age of the universe, it's an easy conclusion to come to that life can exist elsewhere.
To claim without proof that aliens exist is ridiculous, but it is not anywhere on the same level as ghosts or god.

It can exist, but as of yet still does not exist. Possibility is irrelevant.

I'm not saying anything definitively can't exist, just that it effectively doesn't until it does. My point was that I don't get why we arbitrarily pick and choose when to be wishy-washy on our language. We don't list out every future possibility and verbalize our agnosticism on literally everything. Every conversation would take hours or days and would be ended early when someone got tired. "Some weather, huh?" would be followed with an analysis of potential storm paths and how many different ways they could fuck up your weekend.
---

vocedelmorte posted...

There are legitimate ghosts experiences. There are also tons of fabricated ones. It doesn't cancel the legitimate ones though

The supernatural is just the yet to be explained natural. Or the explained, followed by "No, it was a ghost! I saw it!"

So many things that we understand today were once considered magical or signs from the gods.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

"God isn't real" = "Oh you don't know that for sure!"

Why is it okay to say things never proven or observed aren't real except when it comes to God? Literally anything not currently existing could be proven to exist, but God is the only one where you get chided for not sitting in the fence until if and when. A God might be real, but so might unicorns. Maybe a lot of things could happen. But until they do happen, they are basically nonexistent. Why do we arbitrarily abandon an evidence based approach when it comes to God? Imagine never having an opinion and actively acknowledging that everything about anything can be true. You'd go mad.

Basically, I find agnosticism annoying.

Im sorry you find my personal opinion annoying. Im perfectly fine not knowing for sure one way or the other. I dont feel the need to make a definitive statement on the matter, its not necessary. Ill find out when I die, which is inevitable. The uncertainty doesnt bother me.
---

vocedelmorte posted...

There are legitimate ghosts experiences. There are also tons of fabricated ones. It doesn't cancel the legitimate ones though

Perhaps, but how do we distinguish between the two? And how do we even define what a legitimate ghost experience is in the first place?

Also, it's not that these things do or do not exist. It's that their existence is entirely unknown and often poorly defined if they're defined at all.

Dragonblade01 posted...

vocedelmorte posted...

There are legitimate ghosts experiences. There are also tons of fabricated ones. It doesn't cancel the legitimate ones though

Perhaps, but how do we distinguish between the two? And how do we even define what a legitimate ghost experience is in the first place?

This

Tracking interesting topic
---

If someone asks if you're a god you say YES!
---

vocedelmorte posted...

There are legitimate ghosts experiences. There are also tons of fabricated ones. It doesn't cancel the legitimate ones though

If there was a single legitimate experience, we'd have it on film. Instead, we only have people acting like fools, either pretending for the sake of their foolish audience or foolishly believing some random nonsense is the work of ghosts.

hockeybub89 posted...

"God isn't real" = "Oh you don't know that for sure!"

Why is it okay to say things never proven or observed aren't real except when it comes to God? Literally anything not currently existing could be proven to exist, but God is the only one where you get chided for not sitting in the fence until if and when. A God might be real, but so might unicorns. Maybe a lot of things could happen. But until they do happen, they are basically nonexistent. Why do we arbitrarily abandon an evidence based approach when it comes to God? Imagine never having an opinion and actively acknowledging that everything about anything can be true. You'd go mad.

Basically, I find agnosticism annoying.

Part of it is religious people protecting themselves, but I think another aspect of it is levels of abstraction.

Believing in ghosts is more "reasonable" than idk believing in unicorns, because ghosts are a more abstract concept and so it's "harder" to falsify it (even though obviously burden of proof is still always on the people claiming that such things exist).

Tyranthraxus posted...

The existence of extraterrestrial life has a basis in statistical probability

The "statistical basis" for extraterrestrial life is garbage though.
---

nemu posted...

vocedelmorte posted...

There are legitimate ghosts experiences. There are also tons of fabricated ones. It doesn't cancel the legitimate ones though

If there was a single legitimate experience, we'd have it on film. Instead, we only have people acting like fools, either pretending for the sake of their foolish audience or foolishly believing some random nonsense is the work of ghosts.

To be fair despite what YouTube or shows like ghost hunters and ghost adventures show people, there's no on/off switch for things like that. Sometimes paranormal activity won't occur for days, weeks, even months or more at a time. And sometimes it may only last a couple seconds.

With the vids or "evidence" we do have the vast majority are clearly fake. But to be fair I don't think every recorded incident has been reviewed and studied by professionals. At the same time how could anyone professionally gauge if something is real or fake?

It's like how ghost shows involve bringing things like infrared cameras or EMF detectors. Every skeptic comes out and says "that's not for detecting ghosts" which is a fair argument, but what do you use? What can you use? And if there's 1,000 vids showing alleged paranormal activity, but only 1 of them shows something some may say is genuine, how do you decide that? What factor is present in that 1 vid that isn't present in the other 999? And how do you prove to everyone that that 1 vid shows irrefutable evidence that ghosts exist?
---

Imma be honest its pretty fuckin weird to Ben bothered by agnosticism.

Like thats actually a step past just regular internet angtheism.
---

Strider102 posted...

nemu posted...

vocedelmorte posted...

There are legitimate ghosts experiences. There are also tons of fabricated ones. It doesn't cancel the legitimate ones though

If there was a single legitimate experience, we'd have it on film. Instead, we only have people acting like fools, either pretending for the sake of their foolish audience or foolishly believing some random nonsense is the work of ghosts.

To be fair despite what YouTube or shows like ghost hunters and ghost adventures show people, there's no on/off switch for things like that. Sometimes paranormal activity won't occur for days, weeks, even months or more at a time. And sometimes it may only last a couple seconds.

With the vids or "evidence" we do have the vast majority are clearly fake. But to be fair I don't think every recorded incident has been reviewed and studied by professionals. At the same time how could anyone professionally gauge if something is real or fake?

It's like how ghost shows involve bringing things like infrared cameras or EMF detectors. Every skeptic comes out and says "that's not for detecting ghosts" which is a fair argument, but what do you use? What can you use? And if there's 1,000 vids showing alleged paranormal activity, but only 1 of them shows something some may say is genuine, how do you decide that? What factor is present in that 1 vid that isn't present in the other 999? And how do you prove to everyone that that 1 vid shows irrefutable evidence that ghosts exist?

The easiest way is to assume none of them are true because our brains are dumb pattern seekers. With how many hundreds or thousands of years of video are recorded daily, we could easily discern a true event over the thousands of false events supposedly depicting supernatural activity. This is no different than bigfoot, nessie, or alien sightings. There's always an excuse as to why the video is shit. There's always an excuse as to why the supposed sighting seems like pure nonsense. It's just humans desperately looking for proof for something that was never there.

What did God do to make you so angry TC?
---

nemu posted...

Strider102 posted...

nemu posted...

vocedelmorte posted...

There are legitimate ghosts experiences. There are also tons of fabricated ones. It doesn't cancel the legitimate ones though

If there was a single legitimate experience, we'd have it on film. Instead, we only have people acting like fools, either pretending for the sake of their foolish audience or foolishly believing some random nonsense is the work of ghosts.

To be fair despite what YouTube or shows like ghost hunters and ghost adventures show people, there's no on/off switch for things like that. Sometimes paranormal activity won't occur for days, weeks, even months or more at a time. And sometimes it may only last a couple seconds.

With the vids or "evidence" we do have the vast majority are clearly fake. But to be fair I don't think every recorded incident has been reviewed and studied by professionals. At the same time how could anyone professionally gauge if something is real or fake?

It's like how ghost shows involve bringing things like infrared cameras or EMF detectors. Every skeptic comes out and says "that's not for detecting ghosts" which is a fair argument, but what do you use? What can you use? And if there's 1,000 vids showing alleged paranormal activity, but only 1 of them shows something some may say is genuine, how do you decide that? What factor is present in that 1 vid that isn't present in the other 999? And how do you prove to everyone that that 1 vid shows irrefutable evidence that ghosts exist?

The easiest way is to assume none of them are true because our brains are dumb pattern seekers. With how many hundreds or thousands of years of video are recorded daily, we could easily discern a true event over the thousands of false events supposedly depicting supernatural activity. This is no different than bigfoot, nessie, or alien sightings. There's always an excuse as to why the video is shit. There's always an excuse as to why the supposed sighting seems like pure nonsense. It's just humans desperately looking for proof for something that was never there.

What if video proof, if it existed, wasn't enough?
---

Strider102 posted...

nemu posted...

Strider102 posted...

nemu posted...

vocedelmorte posted...

There are legitimate ghosts experiences. There are also tons of fabricated ones. It doesn't cancel the legitimate ones though

If there was a single legitimate experience, we'd have it on film. Instead, we only have people acting like fools, either pretending for the sake of their foolish audience or foolishly believing some random nonsense is the work of ghosts.

To be fair despite what YouTube or shows like ghost hunters and ghost adventures show people, there's no on/off switch for things like that. Sometimes paranormal activity won't occur for days, weeks, even months or more at a time. And sometimes it may only last a couple seconds.

With the vids or "evidence" we do have the vast majority are clearly fake. But to be fair I don't think every recorded incident has been reviewed and studied by professionals. At the same time how could anyone professionally gauge if something is real or fake?

It's like how ghost shows involve bringing things like infrared cameras or EMF detectors. Every skeptic comes out and says "that's not for detecting ghosts" which is a fair argument, but what do you use? What can you use? And if there's 1,000 vids showing alleged paranormal activity, but only 1 of them shows something some may say is genuine, how do you decide that? What factor is present in that 1 vid that isn't present in the other 999? And how do you prove to everyone that that 1 vid shows irrefutable evidence that ghosts exist?

The easiest way is to assume none of them are true because our brains are dumb pattern seekers. With how many hundreds or thousands of years of video are recorded daily, we could easily discern a true event over the thousands of false events supposedly depicting supernatural activity. This is no different than bigfoot, nessie, or alien sightings. There's always an excuse as to why the video is shit. There's always an excuse as to why the supposed sighting seems like pure nonsense. It's just humans desperately looking for proof for something that was never there.

What if video proof, if it existed, wasn't enough?

If it's something humans can discern, video evidence would be enough. Even if the supposed ghost is not on the visible spectrum, its effects should be able to be reliably be caught on camera. We have cameras everywhere in this world, yet the only supposed sightings are by the people who just generally happen to have the worst cameras ever.

I remember as a kid seeing this photo at my brothers wedding where people could see the ghost of my grandfather. It was in the shape of his body and not only that I could see the letters that spelt 'FATHER' in the figure. I can still envision that picture clear as day.

I was reunited with that photo as an adult and saw jack shit. What an utter disappointment. This is why I just can't believe this stuff. The brain and memory can fool you.
---

probably cause of stuff like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01mKyn_Gwcs" data-time="

genius micro-biologist says he experienced something that would be likened to the miracles of eld
(precognition)

also, in the same podcast he talks about how most soil is fungus and that fungus is sentient as he claims and basically reactively forms the echosystem
that the fungus works like a giant neuro network
---

"Eyes aren't real"
Everyone loses their minds

ChaoticKnuckles posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

"God isn't real" = "Oh you don't know that for sure!"

Why is it okay to say things never proven or observed aren't real except when it comes to God? Literally anything not currently existing could be proven to exist, but God is the only one where you get chided for not sitting in the fence until if and when. A God might be real, but so might unicorns. Maybe a lot of things could happen. But until they do happen, they are basically nonexistent. Why do we arbitrarily abandon an evidence based approach when it comes to God? Imagine never having an opinion and actively acknowledging that everything about anything can be true. You'd go mad.

Basically, I find agnosticism annoying.

Im sorry you find my personal opinion annoying. Im perfectly fine not knowing for sure one way or the other. I dont feel the need to make a definitive statement on the matter, its not necessary. Ill find out when I die, which is inevitable. The uncertainty doesnt bother me.

I don't know one way or another and it has never been proven. That is exactly why I say God isn't real. Until we know, it doesn't exist. It's a logical and evidence-based approach. Are you agnostic about everything? Or just religious deities? Why does God get something different than the "non-existent until proven existent" treatment?
---

CanuckCowboy posted...

Imma be honest its pretty fuckin weird to Ben bothered by agnosticism.

Like thats actually a step past just regular internet angtheism.

I'm also bothered by pro-lifers that make exceptions. I'm not a fan of inconsistency. Makes my teeth itch. Again, I have not said anything can't exist, just that I disagree with the default being "well maybe, maybe not". That is not typically the logical stance without evidence, so why is agnosticism considered sensible? Religious people know they are acting on faith. Agnostics are doing logic wrong.

SSMajinVegeta2 posted...

What did God do to make you so angry TC?

I'll be angry if he does turn out real, because I'll be burning in hell for not following his rules while he gets away with being pure evil. This is also assuming a specific unfalsifiable claim on his nature is real and not other religions' unfalsifiable claims or a version of god not yet envisioned by man. I stopped being religious because what I believed had no proof. Now, if he turned out real, I wouldn't believe in him in another sense.
---

Why is everyone assuming ghosts can be recorded on camera? Dreams cant be recorded that way do dreams not exist?
---

Shablagoo posted...

do dreams not exist?

Not in a strict physical sense, no.

Shablagoo posted...

Why is everyone assuming ghosts can be recorded on camera? Dreams cant be recorded that way do dreams not exist?

In a way, ghosts are real the same way dreams are. Our minds create them.
---

Was wrong, ghosts exist
---

hockeybub89 posted...

No one would ever change if that was true. They would develop a worldview at like age 7 and never be swayed.

Sounds right to me
---

So dreams do exist, but they are too ethereal to quantify, is what Im getting. Seems a lot like ghosts.
---

Shablagoo posted...

So dreams do exist, but they are too ethereal to quantify, is what Im getting. Seems a lot like ghosts.

So are you saying ghosts are just a trick of the mind?
---

The mind is a physical thing and the consciousness is one of the least understood things in science. Not sure any reputable neuroscientist would call dreams a trick.
---