Ghosts

[TwigtheWonderkid]

ruprechtmonkeyboy said:

Brooksay said:

paulguitar said:

Brooksay said:

I'll be 45 in a couple of weeks. Never seen a ghost.
In 1981, when I was 5 (exactly 1 year before the folks divorced) we went camping. My dad hired a car for the occasion: a vomit yellow Lada estate. We weren't well off.
Wales was the location. 1 week pitching a tent in which mum and dad, brother and sister and I slept. It was fun, I seem to remember. What I definitely recall is a point on our journey back to Salisbury, from whence we came: we drove past a field, freshly ploughed. Dark earth exposed, no green visible at all. I had a really bad feeling, in my stomach, as we drove. The saddest feeling I've ever known. 40 years later my guts still drop when I think about it. It's stayed with me my whole life.
It bugged me, for years. In my mid 20's I asked my mum if she remembered this journey. She did:apparently I burst into tears, out of the blue. Hysterical, she said. I asked her, as a grown man, where was it this happened. "Aberfan" she said.

I still think of it today.

That's a fascinating story and one that, at face value, seems genuinely eerie.

Thank you for not dismissing it.

One of the usual posters will be along in a minute to explain to you what actually happened even though they weren't there at the time.

Not me. I don't know what happened. I can however explain what didn't happen. Ghosts, that's what didn't happen.

[smn159]

The more interesting question is why so many believe in ghosts in the complete absence of evidence. Interesting piece in the New Scientist

New Scientist said:

FOR the past 20 years, I have immersed myself in the paranormal – the weird world where people claim they can predict the future, summon spirits and move objects with their minds. I have tested telepaths, spent sleepless nights in haunted castles and even attempted to talk with the dead. Each time the story is the same: the anecdotal evidence appears impressive at first glance, but once the phenomenon is subjected to scientific scrutiny it vanishes into thin air.

Sadly it's behind a paywall, but some of the psychology is outlined here.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/09...

[catman]

smn159 said:

The more interesting question is why so many believe in ghosts in the complete absence of evidence. Interesting piece in the New Scientist

Countless millions believe in some version of god with the same (none) level of proof. They don't suffer the same level of ridicule, though.

[BT Summers]

catman said:

smn159 said:

The more interesting question is why so many believe in ghosts in the complete absence of evidence. Interesting piece in the New Scientist

Countless millions believe in some version of god with the same (none) level of proof. They don't suffer the same level of ridicule, though.

In both situations, people would be more willing to talk about their experiences if others were no so quick to turn to ridicule or suggest that the poster must be mistaken.

This has the effect of people walking away from what could be intersting topics.

As I said earlier, this is the worst of typical PH behaviour, deny the existance of something of which you have no personal experience.

[M5-911]

smn159 said:

The more interesting question is why so many believe in ghosts in the complete absence of evidence. Interesting piece in the New Scientist

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[smn159]

M5-911 said:

smn159 said:

The more interesting question is why so many believe in ghosts in the complete absence of evidence. Interesting piece in the New Scientist

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Indeed, although extraordinary claims do require evidence.

If none is forthcoming, don't be surprised when irrational beliefs are not taken seriously.

[smn159]

catman said:

smn159 said:

The more interesting question is why so many believe in ghosts in the complete absence of evidence. Interesting piece in the New Scientist

Countless millions believe in some version of god with the same (none) level of proof. They don't suffer the same level of ridicule, though.

Both sorts of belief in grown adults deserve the same level of respect as belief in the tooth fairy, leprechauns or Father Christmas

[M5-911]

smn159 said:

Both sorts of belief in grown adults deserve the same level of respect as belief in the tooth fairy, leprechauns or Father Christmas

Atheism: A disbelief in the existence of a deity based on a lack of empirical evidence or compelling argument.

[smn159]

M5-911 said:

smn159 said:

Both sorts of belief in grown adults deserve the same level of respect as belief in the tooth fairy, leprechauns or Father Christmas

Atheism: A disbelief in the existence of a deity based on a lack of empirical evidence or compelling argument.

There's a dragon that lives in my garage that disappears when the door is opened. Can you prove otherwise?

How about a giant teapot travelling through the solar system just out of range of the most powerful telescope?

using your logic we should unconditionally accept the existence of both.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

M5-911 said:

smn159 said:

The more interesting question is why so many believe in ghosts in the complete absence of evidence. Interesting piece in the New Scientist

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

It actually is. It's not overwhelming evidence, nor is it fool proof evidence. But, if there's a lack of any evidence for presence, then one can only conclude that absence is the correct answer.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

catman said:

smn159 said:

The more interesting question is why so many believe in ghosts in the complete absence of evidence. Interesting piece in the New Scientist

Countless millions believe in some version of god with the same (none) level of proof. They don't suffer the same level of ridicule, though.

They do in my house.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

BT Summers said:

As I said earlier, this is the worst of typical PH behaviour, deny the existance of something of which you have no personal experience.

You have no personal experience of the bottom of my garden. So the fairies I claim are living there, what's your take on that?

[Whoozit]

I'm certain I've seen a couple. However I don't believe in ghosts, or woowoo stories of life after death.

So I'd put it down to an overactive 10yo imagination and terrors of the dark which were if I'm honest already present.

[paulguitar]

Just because someone thinks they've seen a 'ghost', absolutely does not mean they've actually seen a 'ghost'! The interest is primarily in psychology and the various ways the brain interprets information to make them believe something like that.


Arthur Conan Doyle is a fascinating case. He created one of the most famously logical characters in history, Sherlock Holmes, but Conan Doyle himself was fooled into believing a conspiracy involving fairies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies

[Martin350]

I believe people have very real experiences.
I don't believe there are dead people amongst us.

Whether these experiences are caused by infrasound, electromagnetic energy, other things messing with the human brain or our surroundings that we aren't aware of, I don't know, and maybe one day much more will be understood about it.

But I do find people's stories fascinating, so could the usual suspects who repeatedly jump on every new post describing an experience and protest how it's all a load of nonsense pleeeeease just ease off a bit?
We are fully aware of your views and opinions now, we needn't hear them time and time again.

I'd really like to hear more of people's not easily explained stories, not a circular argument that goes round and round in perpetuity.

Thank you.

Edit to add, that was not aimed at the post above!

Edited by Martin350 on Friday 9th April 22:52

[eharding]

BT Summers said:

catman said:

smn159 said:

The more interesting question is why so many believe in ghosts in the complete absence of evidence. Interesting piece in the New Scientist

Countless millions believe in some version of god with the same (none) level of proof. They don't suffer the same level of ridicule, though.

In both situations, people would be more willing to talk about their experiences if others were no so quick to turn to ridicule or suggest that the poster must be mistaken.

This has the effect of people walking away from what could be intersting topics.

As I said earlier, this is the worst of typical PH behaviour, deny the existance of something of which you have no personal experience.

So you'd rather pander to and apologise for this neurotic superstitious claptrap without there being scope for any criticism?

By all means, tell us your tales of the weird and wonderful oddities you've personally seen - just don't get the arse when you're assertion that it's something supernatural is dissected.

[BT Summers]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

You have no personal experience of the bottom of my garden. So the fairies I claim are living there, what's your take on that?

If you want to write about the fairies in your garden then that is your choice, it is not up to me to tell you that you are a liar or tell you what you may actually be seeing.

[Robbo 27]

eharding said:

BT Summers said:

catman said:

smn159 said:

The more interesting question is why so many believe in ghosts in the complete absence of evidence. Interesting piece in the New Scientist

Countless millions believe in some version of god with the same (none) level of proof. They don't suffer the same level of ridicule, though.

In both situations, people would be more willing to talk about their experiences if others were no so quick to turn to ridicule or suggest that the poster must be mistaken.

This has the effect of people walking away from what could be intersting topics.

As I said earlier, this is the worst of typical PH behaviour, deny the existance of something of which you have no personal experience.

So you'd rather pander to and apologise for this neurotic superstitious claptrap without there being scope for any criticism?

By all means, tell us your tales of the weird and wonderful oddities you've personally seen - just don't get the arse when you're assertion that it's something supernatural is dissected.

I think that the above post says it all.

A person's observations will be taken apart by others who have no knowledge or experience of that observation. The reaction from many will be - why should I add my experiences to a thread for others to dissect what I have experienced. The logical conclusion is that people will not post, why would they want to?

Edited by Robbo 27 on Saturday 10th April 04:12

[Leftyechochamber]

Robbo 27 said:

I think that the above post says it all.

A person's observations will be taken apart by others who have no knowledge or experience of that observation. The reaction from many will be - why should I add my experiences to a thread for others to dissect what I have experienced. The logical conclusion is that people will not post, why would they want to?

Edited by Robbo 27 on Saturday 10th April 04:12

I can't be arsed to multiquote, but this and Martin350's post is spot on!

It would be great to read more unexplainable experiences, and I hope we will.

[Roofless Toothless]

I’m not an atheist, rather an agnostic. Religion and atheism seem equally too ‘sure of themselves’ to me.

We live in a world where the cleverest of scientists haven’t got a clue what the majority of the universe is made of, and only this week a new fundamental force of nature has been discovered.

I don’t know how one or two of the posters on here can be so certain about their opinions.