The supernatural poll

[ophic]

Originally Posted by Viney

this is the thing, i can give the the entire story or circumstance, and it can be argued, explained away beacuse writing it down is totally different than actually being there and witnessing the event itself. If you dont believe or dont want to believe then other than expirencing a simlar thing yourself, isnt going to change it.

This is true enough. I'm not actually attempting to dispute or ridicule anyone's personal experiences. I have had none. But only hard evidence can be used to prove something to others, otherwise it's "just" faith.

[ophic]

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

Let's be honest, I'd dispute anything.

No you wouldn't

[dizzyblonde]

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

Let's be honest, I'd dispute anything.

Indeed you do, as do I.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Including the fact you need a clip round the lughole fer arguin

Originally Posted by ophic

Doesn't follow, sorry. Everyone has their reasons for believing in what they believe, rational or not. And they may have witnessed something that no-one else has. Impossible to prove, but remember that an observed fact requires no proof (to the observer, as the observation is enough proof in itself, assuming a rational mind).

But some people see something that is not a transparent person. The concept that ghosts exist comes from our culture, that is where the belief that they exist originates. Then attempting to convince someone with no experience of it themselves and with no evidence is like trying to convince someone that there is a country inhabited by gorillas on the dark side of the moon.

If you were to say it's irrational not to believe in ghosts because, despite a lack of proof, society is widely aware of the concept so we should believe personal accounts more readily, then how many people with no proof would it take to convince you of the gorilla nation?

That's all I'm saying.

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by dizzyblonde

Indeed you do, as do I.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Including the fact you need a clip round the lughole fer arguin

For not subscribing to your personal religious beliefs? That's a little extremist innit?

They're that common yet nobody in history has ever managed to document one. Riight

Also when they speak to mediums how come they speak so weirdly.
"My name begins with an N....N.....Nigel....M...Michael...Mike....Malcolm. .. yes that's right Malcolm. I died in an event involving water ... drowning... no not drowning....some close ... whilst drinking a coffee....driving"

[dizzyblonde]

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

For not subscribing to your personal religious beliefs? That's a little extremist innit?

I don't have extremist religious beliefs. I leave that to others.
Now bend over I wish to kick you up the 'arris for being an infidel.

[ophic]

Originally Posted by sinbad

But some people see something that is not a transparent person. The concept that ghosts exist comes from our culture, that is where the belief that they exist originates. Then attempting to convince someone with no experience of it themselves and with no evidence is like trying to convince someone that there is a country inhabited by gorillas on the dark side of the moon.

If you were to say it's irrational not to believe in ghosts because, despite a lack of proof, society is widely aware of the concept so we should believe personal accounts more readily, then how many people with no proof would it take to convince you of the gorilla nation?

That's all I'm saying.

But most people who claim that ghosts exist, either have some direct experience (possibly mistaken) or someone close to them that they trust, who has had this experience. The rest just shrug their shoulders "dunno". Or at least they should. Except anyone in the US, who don't see ghosts, they see angels or aliens. By the bucketload.

Originally Posted by ophic

But most people who claim that ghosts exist, either have some direct experience (possibly mistaken) or someone close to them that they trust, who has had this experience. The rest just shrug their shoulders "dunno". Or at least they should. Except anyone in the US, who don't see ghosts, they see angels or aliens. By the bucketload.

Yep. My original point was only in response to the idea that because it's part of popular culture we should be more willing to believe in something no one can come close to proving.

[Messie]

Originally Posted by dizzyblonde

ok, people feel free to go.....duhhh here!
There is nothing rational about the way we live. Take Mensa for instance, they actually go out to find those who can think out of the box, never mind the tests of intelligence.
For instance people who are so tuned into think so rational, we'll take an engineer as example, can only think of the physical, its the way his brain is tuned. They can only think 'in the box'. Those inferior arty types for example, can think out of the box, and many of them can see further than just the physical thing in front of them. These people are more likely to be able to see beyond what a rational thought is telling them.


How do we not know that we are the ghosts here?

Oh dear I was going to stay out of this discussion but I can't resist. Many points to make...
I was a member of Mensa - it's really nothing more than knowing how to take IQ tests, quickly, and making links between things. Load of old duffers with a superiority complex, in my experience, who couldn't keep a plant alive if they tried.

There is a relatively new branch of psychology that has just reached the A level syllabus - it's called anomalistic psychology. One of the main research departments looking at all things paranormal, psychokinetic, PSI, telekenesis, precognition etc etc, is at Goldsmiths in London. Do a search for Chris French there and you'll begin to get the licture.

Basically, anomalistic psychology seeks to find the scientific explanation to people's reported anomalistic experiences, whether surprising or under controlled laboratory conditions. If/when a scientific explanation can't be found, further work is done to seek the explanation, with the assumption that there is a scientific, rational, empirical explanation out there somewhere.
Parapsychologists, on the other hand, seek the scientific explanation, but when one is not forthcoming go on to assume that therefore something beyond 'normal' explanations has caused it.
When you really begin to dig into the research, and use a scientific level of doubt and proof, it becomes clear that what many people experience as 'supernatural' is, in fact, entirely explainable by what we know already.

I could go on about this for ages; it's my current pet bit of psychology, but I won't because some people are ADAMANT that something spooky exists. My thoughts on that are that if that belief gives them comfort, support or understanding then that is just fine, in just the same way that a belief in any religion gives people what they want. But also like a few who believe in religion will shout down those who don't believe, it really turns me away from having this discussion with people with fixed beliefs.

Are you a sheep or a goat (Brugger 2002) is all I can say