Do you believe in ghosts?

[Oafman]

So, are people suggesting we should believe in absolutely everything which could possibly exist, until evidence proves it conclusively, one way or the other?

Bertram Russel's teapot comes to mind....

 

[Belk]

during the dark ages and before that?lol

Yes, the evidence was still there during the dark ages. We simply lacked the tools to discover where the evidence lead. If you have a tool for detecting ghosts and you can find evidence I will find them credible. Until then they are another idea from our past that evidence does not support. We have a great many ideas our ancestors held as true that we do not.

 

[Lollerskates]

And the evidence was still there. Hence why people finally came around to belief.

The evidence is always there, it is just a matter of "coming out" of denial.

Coming around to a belief you ridiculed someone for is hardly progress. It is a waste of time, because during the time of "not believing," even more progress could have been made.

 

[amymine712]

I do not believe in ghosts. I do believe in evil spirits, demons and angels.

 

[freezerman2000]

Yes. That is why they were discovered.

No..the folks suspected something was causing illnesses..that is NOT compelling evidence..after awhile the evidence was found,THEN it became compelling

 

[selfinflikted]

No..the folks suspected something was causing illnesses..that is NOT compelling evidence..after awhile the evidence was found,THEN it became compelling

Fine. Show me a ghost and I'll believe they exist.

 

[Belk]

The evidence is always there, it is just a matter of "coming out" of denial.

Coming around to a belief you ridiculed someone for is hardly progress. It is a waste of time, because during the time of "not believing," even more progress could have been made.

All new ideas must combat disbelief and rightfully so. Otherwise we would believe any old thing that someone made a case for. It is only those things which have compelling evidence we should be swayed by.

 

[freezerman2000]

Yes, the evidence was still there during the dark ages. We simply lacked the tools to discover where the evidence lead. If you have a tool for detecting ghosts and you can find evidence I will find them credible. Until then they are another idea from our past that evidence does not support. We have a great many ideas our ancestors held as true that we do not.

vapors,bad smells and bad air were the suspects of the day..why do you think that people carried a pocket of sweet smelling flowers to ward off the plague?
Miasma theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Lollerskates]

Fine. Show me a ghost and I'll believe they exist.

The entire existence of spirits, or anything for that matter, is not predicated on your personal belief. Or, really anyone's personal belief. Things exist because they exist.

 

[selfinflikted]

vapors,bad smells and bad air were the suspects of the day..why do you think that people carried a pocket of sweet smelling flowers to ward off the plague?
Miasma theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And they would've been wrong. Just like people who believe in ghosts.

 

[selfinflikted]

The entire existence of spirits, or anything for that matter, is not predicated on your personal belief. Or, really anyone's personal belief. Things exist because they exist.

The existence of spirits, or anything for that matter, is not predicated on your personal belief.

 

[Belk]

vapors,bad smells and bad air were the suspects of the day..why do you think that people carried a pocket of sweet smelling flowers to ward off the plague?
Miasma theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, people came up with all kinds of ideas that were consistent with their world view. A lot of those ideas have been shown to be incorrect but some still believe them.

 

[Paulos23]

I don't. I use to, but the evidence didn't hold together and new 'evidence' didn't either.

And the Ghost Hunters just killed it for me. Never seen so many fakers before.

 

[Lollerskates]

All new ideas must combat disbelief and rightfully so. Otherwise we would believe any old thing that someone made a case for. It is only those things which have compelling evidence we should be swayed by.

Doubt is healthy. Dogged incredulity, scoffing, attacking and ridicule is not, and in academia doubt among scientists tends to be concentrated in direct relation to the acceptance of a standard. Acceptance does not mean truth.

Asch conformity experiments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Lollerskates]

The existence of spirits, or anything for that matter, is not predicated on your personal belief.

I just said that.

They exist because they exist.

 

[Belk]

Doubt is healthy. Dogged incredulity, scoffing, attacking and ridicule is not, and in academia doubt among scientists tends to be concentrated in direct relation to the acceptance of a standard. Acceptance does not mean truth.

Asch conformity experiments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And yet academics are human and subject to the exact same foibles as the rest of us. Scoffing, attacking, and ridicule are the name of the game in Science from what I have heard. It is a rough profession and ideas and people have to stand up to the challenge to be taken seriously.

 

[selfinflikted]

I just said that.

They exist because they exist.

Yes, and I flipped it right back around on you!

I hope you can see my point.

If they (ghosts) exist, please demonstrate their existence with evidence.

 

[Lollerskates]

And yet academics are human and subject to the exact same foibles as the rest of us. Scoffing, attacking, and ridicule are the name of the game in Science from what I have heard. It is a rough profession and ideas and people have to stand up to the challenge to be taken seriously.

It is the name of the game in academia, but it shouldn't be. That just makes it politics, or religion with equations. There is no problem with being challenged, but academia (not necessarily science) goes beyond that: blacklisting, pulling of scholarly articles, loss of tenure, and so on - for challenging the standard, and pursuing that challenge despite community doubt or disdain. That mentality is extrapolated to common human consciousness - already flawed - because scientists are seen as arbiters of truth. If it isn't prove by "science" (more accurately, academia) it doesn't exist, or one should doubt. That is the problem that has stunted progress in both religion and academia alike.

I enjoy being challenged, and working to vindicate myself (or learning something new.) That is only if all parties' minds are open, and are willing. I don't dismiss people who have experiences and knowledge that cannot be proven by modern science because I know the limitations of science. And, there is also always 400 years later; don't want to be one of those historic doubters that made it hard for a thought to come to proper fruition, whether that mean grow (in connection with found evidence,) or die (based on "enough" evidence.) Lack of evidence is not evidence.

 

[Lollerskates]

Yes, and I flipped it right back around on you!

I hope you can see my point.

If they (ghosts) exist, please demonstrate their existence with evidence.

Fine. Show me a ghost and I'll believe they exist.

The entire existence of spirits, or anything for that matter, is not predicated on your personal belief. Or, really anyone's personal belief. Things exist because they exist.

It has been flipped on you already. Nice try.

And, you still missed my point: no matter what you choose as evidence, things exist because they exist. If you do not believe, or believe there is not sufficient evidence, that is your prerogative. It doesn't negate the existence of something because you are not intellectually satisfied with the evidence of existence.

As far as "evidence," it begs the question of 1) what is evidence you seek, 2) how much is enough, 3) from what source, 4) the frequency needed to confirm the result as evidence. These circumstances depend on the person, which brings us back to MY point that neither you or anyone else predicates the existence of something because you believe or doubt its existence.

Taking the encounter of Christ and Thomas as a purely philosophical metaphor, the encounter showed that even if someone has all of the evidence right in from of their face, people will still find a reason or way to doubt. So, evidence doesn't matter; it is about belief and faith.

 

[selfinflikted]

And, you still missed my point: no matter what you choose as evidence, things exist because they exist. If you do not believe, or believe there is not sufficient evidence, that is your prerogative. It doesn't negate the existence of something because you are not intellectually satisfied with the evidence of existence.

I don't disagree with this. However, because you believe in ghosts doesn't mean they exist. If they do exist, show that they exist.

As far as "evidence," it begs the question of 1) what is evidence you seek, 2) how much is enough, 3) from what source, 4) the frequency needed to confirm the result as evidence. These circumstances depend on the person, which brings us back to MY point that neither you or anyone else predicates the existence of something because you believe or doubt its existence.

Anything objective should be considered. Unfortunately, there isn't any objective evidence that I know of. The only evidence I've seen so far is in the form of anecdotes and ghost "stories." Hardly convincing.

Taking the encounter of Christ and Thomas as a purely philosophical metaphor, the encounter showed that even if someone has all of the evidence right in from of their face, people will still find a reason or way to doubt. So, evidence doesn't matter; it is about belief and faith.

Hey, if ghosts exist, then they exist. Why should I believe that they do?