8pints Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 (edited) If there's no such thing as Ghosts how do you explain this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsu354y9tcg Hopkirk is deceased but Randall can still see him and talk to him....so....need I say more? EDIT - And also, if you need further proof...http://www.villatalk.com/index.php/user/11882-ghost/'>http://www.villatalk.com/index.php/user/11882-ghost/ Edited July 19, 2013 by 8pints Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 When someone asks you to disprove ghosts, what do you say? You can't disprove a negative. It's not your job to disprove something that doesn't exist. It's their job to prove it does exist. The burden of proof is always on the prosecution. Anecdotes: "I've seen ghosts countless times" / "Many people have seen ghosts" Documentary evidence e.g. (dubious) photographs I don't believe in ghosts, but I always find it hard to argue with people who are more...credulous, with regards to this issue. The god argument is frankly, a lot easier to win (even if the religious don't admit it ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted July 19, 2013 Moderator Share Posted July 19, 2013 Anecdotes: "I've seen ghosts countless times" / "Many people have seen ghosts" Documentary evidence e.g. (dubious) photographsPat them on the head, smile sympathetically and walk the **** away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted July 19, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted July 19, 2013 When someone asks you to disprove ghosts, what do you say? "Grow up" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shillzz Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 I've seen a ghost, very vividly infact. I still don't believe they really exist though. T'was just a trick of my semi-lucid mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post 8pints Posted July 19, 2013 Popular Post Share Posted July 19, 2013 Pat them on the head, smile sympathetically and walk the **** away. "Grow up" You two should get a TV show where you go around dispelling myths and urban legends The show could have a good cop (BOF) bad cop (Stevo985) vibe and drive around in this Think you've seen a ghost? Werewolf in the Park? Poor routine in the Gym? Someone make a joke without an emoticon? Meet VT's sceptical married couple as we send them to your door to tell you how and why you're talking poo. Coming soon to AVTV, narratted by Jack Woodward....MYTH-BOFFERS! 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted July 19, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted July 19, 2013 Haha, and every episode would be 59 minutes of build up. What the myth is, who believes it, sightings, interviews al that shit. Then the last 60 seconds is us pulling up, knocking on the door, and then performing our catchphrases (above) Roll credits 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted July 19, 2013 Moderator Share Posted July 19, 2013 You have a very vivid imagination Mr. Pints 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 (edited) I've seen a ghost, very vividly infact. I still don't believe they really exist though. T'was just a trick of my semi-lucid mind. yeah, in my old house I walked out to the hall from the living room and at the top of the stairs was an old lady. I jumped, then I said 'ooh, you made me jump' then I realised I didn't know who the f it was, so I shouted 'oi excuse me' and ran up the stairs - but she'd gone! Now what I had there, was a 'ghost' encounter. Except ghosts don't exist, so clearly my brain threw a 5 second reboot or something. Fascinating, i'd love to know what it was about, but there are no ghosts. thinking about it later it made me chuckle that I said 'excuse me' to a stranger upstairs in my house - now THAT is what make somebody British Edited July 19, 2013 by chrisp65 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 Some people do seem to have a greater tendency to "see" ghosts than others do, come to think of it. I just don't know how you can persuade people like that that they are most likely being tricked by their flawed eyes/brains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted July 19, 2013 Moderator Share Posted July 19, 2013 Some people do seem to have a greater tendency to "see" ghosts than others do, come to think of it. I just don't know how you can persuade people like that that they are most likely being tricked by their flawed eyes/brains. You won't persuade a fanatic. Thankfully you don't have to. That doesn't mean you can't have some fun with them though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 Some people do seem to have a greater tendency to "see" ghosts than others do, come to think of it. I just don't know how you can persuade people like that that they are most likely being tricked by their flawed eyes/brains. You won't persuade a fanatic. Thankfully you don't have to. That doesn't mean you can't have some fun with them though The thing is, with God - not a nebulous, pantheistic Creator, but a personal god concerned with the minute details of human lives - it is easy to positively disprove its existence. The problem of human suffering, for example, is imho solid proof against the idea that a god, if he/she exists, cares about us in any way. I don't have to use the "burden of proof" argument, so I am very sure that God (as defined above) does not exist. With ghosts, you do have to use the "burden of proof" angle - and while this is a perfectly valid argument to use, it does not offer the same amount of certitude as evidence that disproves the claim does. On top of that, people who claim ghosts exist often do come armed with evidence - not just anecdotes, but also documentary evidence like photographs. Of course, chances are, the photos are best explained by tricks of light, and the anecdotes are best explained by the fact that our eyes play tricks on us and that they are influenced by our subconscious. But on what basis can one say those? Who's to say that the theory that the object was John's dead grandma isn't as valid as the theory that it was all an illusion? Without any sort of objective evidence in favour of the non-existence of ghosts, you just can't have the same amount of certitude as you can with the god question. And without that certitude, there will always be a tiny part of me that wonders if maybe, just maybe, my ghost-believing friend is right after all. Not sure if I explained that very well, I'm very sleepy right now (11.30pm in SE Aus right now) which means I'm semi-lucid as well 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 I never like to rule anything out because you just never know, and everyone may just be wrong.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 I never like to rule anything out because you just never know, and everyone may just be wrong.. Hmm? I must be sleepier than I thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 (edited) I don't believe in 'god' btw and I've never seen a 'ghost'... Also has anyone considered these 'ghosts' are just hallucinations? Edited July 19, 2013 by AVFCforever1991 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 Also has anyone considered these 'ghosts' are just hallucinations? They probably always are, if you ask me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted July 19, 2013 Moderator Share Posted July 19, 2013 The thing is, with God - not a nebulous, pantheistic Creator, but a personal god concerned with the minute details of human lives - it is easy to positively disprove its existence. The problem of human suffering, for example, is imho solid proof against the idea that a god, if he/she exists, cares about us in any way. I don't have to use the "burden of proof" argument, so I am very sure that God (as defined above) does not exist. With ghosts, you do have to use the "burden of proof" angle - and while this is a perfectly valid argument to use, it does not offer the same amount of certitude as evidence that disproves the claim does. On top of that, people who claim ghosts exist often do come armed with evidence - not just anecdotes, but also documentary evidence like photographs. Of course, chances are, the photos are best explained by tricks of light, and the anecdotes are best explained by the fact that our eyes play tricks on us and that they are influenced by our subconscious. But on what basis can one say those? Who's to say that the theory that the object was John's dead grandma isn't as valid as the theory that it was all an illusion? Without any sort of objective evidence in favour of the non-existence of ghosts, you just can't have the same amount of certitude as you can with the god question. And without that certitude, there will always be a tiny part of me that wonders if maybe, just maybe, my ghost-believing friend is right after all. Not sure if I explained that very well, I'm very sleepy right now (11.30pm in SE Aus right now) which means I'm semi-lucid as well You explained it fine. Basically there are people who; when armed with 'proof' that they can't explain; will always gravitate towards the 'ooga booga' explanation. It's actually why gods and belief in the supernatural is so prevalent. As science gradually explains these mysteries one by one, the ooga booga factor diminishes but there'll always be the next question to answer, and as long as there's even one thing that hasn't yet been explained, you'll have those people saying 'yeah but what about this ...". It's tiring and they have my sympathy because there's something fundamentally unhinged and I don't want to try and fix it for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted July 19, 2013 Administrator Share Posted July 19, 2013 Neuroscience is a relatively new field. The more we learn, the clearer it is that we do not yet have explanations for how thinking works. Your eyes are not cameras and people don't "see" images. You see what your brain interprets from the data available to it. This is the basis for optical illusions. I can predict with a reasonable degree of confidence that as we are already able to induce images of ball lightning and "real" religious experiences by artificial means, that all the nonsense about ghosts and similar will pass from the mainstream into "can you believe people used to think that...". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8pints Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 I'd like to see a ghost but sadly I don't think I ever will. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted July 19, 2013 Moderator Share Posted July 19, 2013 "can you believe people used to think that...".Or that some still do and always will. Whether through their religious beliefs or through stubbornness or an emotional crutch (w.r.t. ghosts being relatives for example). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts