Have You Ever Seen A Ghost?

[Hoff Kinkmeister]

No...it isn't...

But it was taken at nighttime.

 

[saltydude]

In my post "the spot in the pic was an old graveyard that had grown over".

Yeah I read your post. I suppose I can see taking it just to capture what the yard has transformed into but I probably wouldn't have taken "that picture" without including the skyline or gravestone or building etc. just as a visual reference but it's just personal preference. I still think it's cool.

 

[AuBassMan]

Yeah I read your post. I suppose I can see taking it just to capture what the yard has transformed into but I probably wouldn't have taken "that picture" without including the skyline or gravestone or building etc. just as a visual reference but it's just personal preference. I still think it's cool.

It's property that was once part of an old plantation and it was a pic of how overgrown it had become...The people buried there were slaves so probably not much in the way of gravestones other than big rocks....very sad if the pic is what it seems...I'm just presenting the pic and related story as it was told to me. Is this an actual image of a ghost? Dunno...Did the lady my wife worked with set this up and lie about it? I don't know that either, but she didn't seem like the type of person to do something like that.

 

[adivin]

Agreed, I've heard that kind of anecdote before. Yet I also hear that ghosts only reveal themselves to those who believe.

Am I missing something or is that as inconsistent as it seems?

I don't accept the premise that ghosts ONLY reveal themselves to those who believe. That is not accepted as fact.

 

[One Drop]

I don't accept the premise that ghosts ONLY reveal themselves to those who believe. That is not accepted as fact.

There is absolutely nothing supporting the existence of ghosts or the ability to detect them that is accepted as fact.

You can have an open mind but you can't decide what the definition of a fact is!

 

[adivin]

There is absolutely nothing supporting the existence of ghosts or the ability to detect them that is accepted as fact.

You can have an open mind but you can't decide what the definition of a fact is!

Ok, rephrase. I don't believe ghosts only show themselves to those who are open to their existence.

 

[dave64o]

I don't accept the premise that ghosts ONLY reveal themselves to those who believe. That is not accepted as fact.

Sorry it sounded like I was saying you said that. That wasn't my intent. However, I was told that very clearly by someone else earlier in this thread and, based on what I've heard from believers before, it does seem to be something commonly thought.

As a very skeptical skeptic, most people would probably think I would dispute the concept that ghosts only reveal themselves to those who believe. But I don't. I find that concept very easy to believe. So should anyone on the very skeptical through non-believer side of the spectrum. Yep, I am serious about that.

 

[two fingers]

Funny you should say that. I do know what happens at least for the first three minutes after life. You must be one of those people who makes things up to fill in the gaps of what you don't know. You don't know what happens after death, so you make up ghosts, for which there has never been any proof of their existence. Hallucinations are not evidence.

You act as though anyone being sure of something they have experienced is nonsense. And yet you seem to be very sure something you have never experienced doesn't exist simply because you haven't experienced it. Which is more nonsensical?

The only proof you have that wind exists is that trees sway and kites fly. But you have never seen it.

 

[One Drop]

You act as though anyone being sure of something they have experienced is nonsense. And yet you seem to be very sure something you have never experienced doesn't exist simply because you haven't experienced it. Which is more nonsensical?

The only proof you have that wind exists is that trees sway and kites fly. But you have never seen it.

Not a great example because we experience wind, just not directly visually but from it's observable effect.

But it is well understood that what we experience sensorially cannot be taken at face value, and that we often crest false causalities, etc etc.

 

[saltydude]

Sorry it sounded like I was saying you said that. That wasn't my intent. However, I was told that very clearly by someone else earlier in this thread and, based on what I've heard from believers before, it does seem to be something commonly thought.

As a very skeptical skeptic, most people would probably think I would dispute the concept that ghosts only reveal themselves to those who believe. But I don't. I find that concept very easy to believe. So should anyone on the very skeptical through non-believer side of the spectrum. Yep, I am serious about that.

I know you're referring to me and I re read my post.
My first line was "most likely" not reveal themselves.
Then I said (mostly in reference to mediums) "they don't" which I take back and should of said "typically dont" so I grant relevance to your position.

 

[two fingers]

Not a great example because we experience wind, just not directly visually but from it's observable effect.

But it is well understood that what we experience sensorially cannot be taken at face value, and that we often crest false causalities, etc etc.

My point is this. You have never experienced the bone-chilling winds of Mount Everest but you take witnesses' accounts at face value. Why are ghosts different? Hundreds of wittnesses, some even notable people in history, have claimed to see ghosts. Why do they not get the same benefit of the doubt? Why do you completely discount something simply because you have not experienced it yourself? To me, that places oneself on a very high pedestal. It implies that you are perhaps the only one qualified to make such a call for the rest of us. Until you see it, it hasn't happened. Did the crashing of ocean waves not occur until you witnessed it?

Yes, my language is intentionally "trollish". But that is simply to emphasize a point. I don't mean everything I wrote in the most literal sense.

(These days, with everyone being so sensitive, one can no longer assume such understandings.)

 

[DwaynieAD]

so glad so many of you are here to tell others what they've experienced. don't know what anyone would do with out you.

 

[dave64o]

My point is this. You have never experienced the bone-chilling winds of Mount Everest but you take witnesses' accounts at face value. Why are ghosts different? Hundreds of wittnesses, some even notable people in history, have claimed to see ghosts. Why do they not get the same benefit of the doubt? Why do you completely discount something simply because you have not experienced it yourself? To me, that places oneself on a very high pedestal. It implies that you are perhaps the only one qualified to make such a call for the rest of us. Until you see it, it hasn't happened. Did the crashing of ocean waves not occur until you witnessed it?

Yes, my language is intentionally "trollish". But that is simply to emphasize a point. I don't mean everything I wrote in the most literal sense.

(These days, with everyone being so sensitive, one can no longer assume such understandings.)

PREQUEL: Having written this post, I realized after the fact that it got quite long. However, I tried hard to not be sarcastic and to state what I hope are reasonably thought out points. So if anyone thought I was a sarcastic, closed minded a$$, which I probalby deserve, hopefully this admittedly long post will help provide some evidence that while I may still be an a$$, I'm that I'm not a complete a$$. Having said that, ....

It's true that very few people have been to the top of Mt. Everest (and even fewer people have come back down! ), but there is a pretty vast difference between the concept of strong winds at a mountain peak and the concept of ghosts. The vast majority of people have experienced strong winds so the assertion that strong winds exist at the top of the world's largest mountain, where the peak is high up in the atmosphere where the winds are often much stronger than on the ground, doesn't take a lot of faith for people to accept.

On the other hand, there's not a lot of real evidence supporting the existence of ghosts. I will agree that there is some evidence, but it doesn't seem to be to be the kind of experimentally-verified, peer-reviewed and vetted evidence you'd get with the natural (as opposed with the supernatural). It seems to me that most of the evidence related to the existence of ghosts is more like "See? If it's not a ghost then how would YOU explain that?!?!", whatever the "that" is. But concluding that something is a ghost simply because it can't be explained with what's known today is really a Dark Ages kind of mentality. There are a lot of phenomena in the world that were once considered supernatural, and in the past lot of people paid painful, horrific prices for the fear and ignorance that people of the time had. But now there are a lot of things that were once frightening supernatural phenomena that we now understand and are now part of the natural.

Does that mean I can explain EVERYTHING? Hell no, I'd never try to claim that (just ask my wife if I know everything ) . However, I can at least say that I've learned enough on my own and through my education that there is a lot we know, a lot we don't know, and a lot we may never know. And, based on those experiences, I strongly suspect that over time a lot that is unknown today is likely to become known in the future (IOW, even more supernatural will become natural). And that's at least one thing that makes me skeptical about the existence of ghosts. It's really hard for me to make the leap from "I can't prove they don't exist" to "There's a reasonable likelihood that they exist simply because I don't have any other explanation". And I can still open minded enough to be able to acknowledge that they exist when the evidence shows that they do while being EXTREMELY skeptical that they do exist and even while I doubt that evidence will ever exist.

 

[Darth Handsome]

My point is this. You have never experienced the bone-chilling winds of Mount Everest but you take witnesses' accounts at face value. Why are ghosts different? Hundreds of wittnesses, some even notable people in history, have claimed to see ghosts. Why do they not get the same benefit of the doubt? Why do you completely discount something simply because you have not experienced it yourself? To me, that places oneself on a very high pedestal. It implies that you are perhaps the only one qualified to make such a call for the rest of us. Until you see it, it hasn't happened. Did the crashing of ocean waves not occur until you witnessed it?

Yes, my language is intentionally "trollish". But that is simply to emphasize a point. I don't mean everything I wrote in the most literal sense.

(These days, with everyone being so sensitive, one can no longer assume such understandings.)

You make lousy comparisons sometimes.

 

[Darth Handsome]

so glad so many of you are here to tell others what they've experienced. don't know what anyone would do with out you.

You've never seen a ghost either. You were dreaming. Or drunk. Or both.

 

[DwaynieAD]

You've never seen a ghost either. You were dreaming. Or drunk. Or both.

first i dont drink
second i never said i saw a ghost
hope you dont get a nosebleed up there.

 

[Darth Handsome]

first i dont drink
second i never said i saw a ghost
hope you dont get a nosebleed up there.

Don't argue. You were drunk.

 

[two fingers]

PREQUEL: Having written this post, I realized after the fact that it got quite long. However, I tried hard to not be sarcastic and to state what I hope are reasonably thought out points. So if anyone thought I was a sarcastic, closed minded a$$, which I probalby deserve, hopefully this admittedly long post will help provide some evidence that while I may still be an a$$, I'm that I'm not a complete a$$. Having said that, ....

It's true that very few people have been to the top of Mt. Everest (and even fewer people have come back down! ), but there is a pretty vast difference between the concept of strong winds at a mountain peak and the concept of ghosts. The vast majority of people have experienced strong winds so the assertion that strong winds exist at the top of the world's largest mountain, where the peak is high up in the atmosphere where the winds are often much stronger than on the ground, doesn't take a lot of faith for people to accept.

On the other hand, there's not a lot of real evidence supporting the existence of ghosts. I will agree that there is some evidence, but it doesn't seem to be to be the kind of experimentally-verified, peer-reviewed and vetted evidence you'd get with the natural (as opposed with the supernatural). It seems to me that most of the evidence related to the existence of ghosts is more like "See? If it's not a ghost then how would YOU explain that?!?!", whatever the "that" is. But concluding that something is a ghost simply because it can't be explained with what's known today is really a Dark Ages kind of mentality. There are a lot of phenomena in the world that were once considered supernatural, and in the past lot of people paid painful, horrific prices for the fear and ignorance that people of the time had. But now there are a lot of things that were once frightening supernatural phenomena that we now understand and are now part of the natural.

Does that mean I can explain EVERYTHING? Hell no, I'd never try to claim that (just ask my wife if I know everything ) . However, I can at least say that I've learned enough on my own and through my education that there is a lot we know, a lot we don't know, and a lot we may never know. And, based on those experiences, I strongly suspect that over time a lot that is unknown today is likely to become known in the future (IOW, even more supernatural will become natural). And that's at least one thing that makes me skeptical about the existence of ghosts. It's really hard for me to make the leap from "I can't prove they don't exist" to "There's a reasonable likelihood that they exist simply because I don't have any other explanation". And I can still open minded enough to be able to acknowledge that they exist when the evidence shows that they do while being EXTREMELY skeptical that they do exist and even while I doubt that evidence will ever exist.

Fair enough. I can't disagree with a single thing here. Carry on.

 

[two fingers]

You make lousy comparisons sometimes.

You make hit and run blanket statements that imply you are the only person on Earth who could possibly be right on many issues...... quite often.

Seems we have each other completely figured out, eh?

 

[One Drop]

PREQUEL: Having written this post, I realized after the fact that it got quite long. However, I tried hard to not be sarcastic and to state what I hope are reasonably thought out points. So if anyone thought I was a sarcastic, closed minded a$$, which I probalby deserve, hopefully this admittedly long post will help provide some evidence that while I may still be an a$$, I'm that I'm not a complete a$$. Having said that, ....

It's true that very few people have been to the top of Mt. Everest (and even fewer people have come back down! ), but there is a pretty vast difference between the concept of strong winds at a mountain peak and the concept of ghosts. The vast majority of people have experienced strong winds so the assertion that strong winds exist at the top of the world's largest mountain, where the peak is high up in the atmosphere where the winds are often much stronger than on the ground, doesn't take a lot of faith for people to accept.

On the other hand, there's not a lot of real evidence supporting the existence of ghosts. I will agree that there is some evidence, but it doesn't seem to be to be the kind of experimentally-verified, peer-reviewed and vetted evidence you'd get with the natural (as opposed with the supernatural). It seems to me that most of the evidence related to the existence of ghosts is more like "See? If it's not a ghost then how would YOU explain that?!?!", whatever the "that" is. But concluding that something is a ghost simply because it can't be explained with what's known today is really a Dark Ages kind of mentality. There are a lot of phenomena in the world that were once considered supernatural, and in the past lot of people paid painful, horrific prices for the fear and ignorance that people of the time had. But now there are a lot of things that were once frightening supernatural phenomena that we now understand and are now part of the natural.

Does that mean I can explain EVERYTHING? Hell no, I'd never try to claim that (just ask my wife if I know everything ) . However, I can at least say that I've learned enough on my own and through my education that there is a lot we know, a lot we don't know, and a lot we may never know. And, based on those experiences, I strongly suspect that over time a lot that is unknown today is likely to become known in the future (IOW, even more supernatural will become natural). And that's at least one thing that makes me skeptical about the existence of ghosts. It's really hard for me to make the leap from "I can't prove they don't exist" to "There's a reasonable likelihood that they exist simply because I don't have any other explanation". And I can still open minded enough to be able to acknowledge that they exist when the evidence shows that they do while being EXTREMELY skeptical that they do exist and even while I doubt that evidence will ever exist.

What he said.

It shouldn't be necessary to spell it out in this day and age, but so be it.