# Paranormal



## Elric (Aug 10, 2011)

As far as I know, this forum does not have a paranormal thread.
----
 So, do you believe in ghosts or spirits? Or are you one of those people who thinks it's all in our head? I'm kind of in between. I wouldn't deny that there is no such things as ghost because there is no solid proof that there existence is not possible. Also another question, there are theories on how spirits exist such as the extra energy that leaves your body has to go somewhere and yadda yadda or something of the sort. Do you have any theories of how they can exist? 

My favorite supposedly haunted area is a place in Missouri called "zombie road". It's famous for the "river of death" and "shadow beings".

If any are interested in it, here is a link of when a paranormal task force visited it:
http://www.paranormaltaskforce.com/ZombieI.html


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 10, 2011)

No, I don't believe in them at all. I don't even think about the matter... frankly, I'm eagerer to give the benefit of the doubt to aliens.


----------



## Aleu (Aug 10, 2011)

I am a spiritual person so of course I believe.


----------



## Mentova (Aug 10, 2011)

I'm mostly skeptical, but open to the idea of the paranormal. I myself have had some strange shit happen to me over the years, but I'm sure there is a logical explanation for it all. However, I _love_ ghost stories and such. I used to be a whore for those shows on TV about haunted buildings and areas.


----------



## Conker (Aug 10, 2011)

http://www.cracked.com/article_18828_the-creepy-scientific-explanation-behind-ghost-sightings.html

Pretty much this


----------



## Cinder Raccoon (Aug 10, 2011)

While I don't believe in ghosts or any other paranormal occurences in the slightest, I do get creeped out if I've recently watched something of the sort and am alone in the dark. Of course, I'm able to rationalize those fears away, even if I might start crying a little bit before that.


----------



## Aetius (Aug 10, 2011)

If I cant eat them, they don't exist.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Aug 10, 2011)

I agree more with this guy: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/05/23/physics-and-the-immortality-of-the-soul/
By the way... we have had this thread before.  But I think maybe it's been a while since it's come up.



			
				Elric said:
			
		

> I wouldn't deny that there is no such things as ghost because there is no solid proof that there existence is not possible.


You need to read more Carl Sagan so you know why this statement is silly.


----------



## Xenke (Aug 10, 2011)

Everything "paranormal" has another, more reasonable explanation.

So no.


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Aug 10, 2011)

I have been to zombie road many times.  A more appropriate name would be "white supremacist road" or "meth lab road" or even "need 4 wheel drive road."


----------



## Littlerock (Aug 10, 2011)

I had a friend once who thought my house was haunted because the neighborhood cats would mrowl to our housecats at night. "They know that there are ghosts in there! They can see them."

I couldn't bring myself to tell them that the cat was just horny.


----------



## BRN (Aug 10, 2011)

I believe ghosts exist in the minds of the people who see them.

Less diplomatically phrased, ghosts are for the mentally broken or mentally deficient.


----------



## Unsilenced (Aug 10, 2011)

I think "paranormal" is a contradiction. I mean, if it occurs, it's normal. If it doesn't occur, it's not real. "Paranormal" suggests that something is there that shouldn't be there. I honestly don't care if it's a ghost or a Sasquatch or an overzealous real estate agent in a costume, it's either there or it isn't. 

...

Or it's a particle that is and isn't there simultaneously but even that's not paranormal because they occur and are therefore normal.


----------



## Iudicium_86 (Aug 10, 2011)

Having some experiences before. Yes, I do believe in the existance of 'paranormal' happenings and/or entities, but they're not a priority to me or something I think about during my day-to-day life. 

Abandoned hospitals and asylums always creep the shit outa me though.


----------



## FoxPhantom (Aug 10, 2011)

I am spiritual, and I am open minded about this stuff but some times a bit of science is needed.


----------



## CAThulu (Aug 10, 2011)

Yup.  I've had some pretty weird, unexplainable experiences in my life; haunted workplaces, haunted houses, etc.  I had friends who had some black magick worked on them back in high school because a girl was in love with someone who didn't want to go out with her.  Scary shit.  They were all very sick and couldn't figure out why until she confessed as to what she had done.  Once she did a reversal they were better, but some of the people affected didn't believe in paranormal.  Afterward that incident they did.

So yeah; over 25 years of paranormal experience here, mostly first hand but some through first person accounts.  I say if you don't believe, keep that up.  It can save you from a few scary experiences, but on the other hand you may come across something so bizarre that it'll change your mind.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Aug 10, 2011)

I think they exist. I feel like there is a spiritual world that overlaps our everyday world. Everyone needs to believe in something.


----------



## ryanleblanc (Aug 10, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> If I cant eat them, they don't exist.



So if you can't manage to eat an entire house (the brick, metal, wood, everything), then we would all be homeless because houses don't exist. ;D lol

More on topic, no, I don't believe in the paranormal. I love scary movies, even ones about the paranormal, but I don't believe any of it. I'd be more likely to believe in aliens.


----------



## Xenke (Aug 10, 2011)

ryanleblanc said:


> I'd be more likely to believe in aliens.



Hey man, don't bullshit me, aliens are real.


----------



## ryanleblanc (Aug 10, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Hey man, don't bullshit me, aliens are real.



That's what i'm saying' ;D I believe in the possibility of aliens, but never the possibility of the paranormal.


----------



## Bliss (Aug 10, 2011)

If paranormal exists it must be rather normal.


----------



## Littlerock (Aug 10, 2011)

I admit, I believe in spirits to an extent. Nothing like that stupid 'ghost hunters' or whatever it is, but more or less divine shenanigans.


----------



## Lobar (Aug 11, 2011)

Non-existent until demonstrated otherwise with evidence for which there is no more parsimonious explanation.  As it is with everything else.



dinosaurdammit said:


> Everyone needs to believe in something.


 
Watch me.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Aug 11, 2011)

Jersey Devil.

'Nuff said.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Aug 11, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Jersey Devil.
> 
> 'Nuff said.



You know my sona :v


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 11, 2011)

My dad sits around all day watching ufo videos on yos iphone 
sometimes he doesnt even here me talking to him or notice me in the room


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Aug 11, 2011)

dinosaurdammit said:


> You know my sona :v



Nothing 'bout your murrsona.

But I've camped in the Pine Barrens.

It's there.


----------



## Unsilenced (Aug 11, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> If paranormal exists it must be rather normal.



Curse you and your ability to say what I said in a more concise and less utterly confused manner. :v



Lobar said:


> Watch me.


[troll] Do you believe in your ability to believe in nothing? [/troll]


----------



## Mr. Brightside (Aug 11, 2011)

Eh, kinda.  I mean, it could be argued both ways, but I personally lean more towards yes.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Aug 11, 2011)

The paranormal doesn't exist. Souls, ghosts, bigfoot don't exist. We haven't been visited by aliens, and alternative medicine- like crystals, faith healing or chiropractic- doesn't work. :V that about covers it.


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 11, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> The paranormal doesn't exist. Souls, ghosts, bigfoot don't exist. We haven't been visited by aliens, and alternative medicine- like crystals, faith healing or chiropractic- doesn't work. :V that about covers it.


... how do you know.


----------



## Belluavir (Aug 11, 2011)

Clayton said:


> My dad sits around all day watching ufo videos on yos iphone
> sometimes he doesnt even here me talking to him or notice me in the room



If he says too much, the men in black will come and take him away.


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 11, 2011)

Belluavir said:


> If he says too much, the men in black will come and take him away.


no he says just
ugh
every time its teh SAME THING
THE EXACT SAME THING WORD FOR WORD

"20 years I've been looking for proof on UFOs and I've never found anything even close!!"

yet hes there
on the couch...
every day...
watching ufo videos on his iphone.... until he goes to bed.


----------



## Belluavir (Aug 11, 2011)

Wow, most people who look for proof for twenty years at least believe that they've found it... 

Maybe he always does the same thing because he thinks its groundhog's day.


----------



## BRN (Aug 11, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Yeah kind of, I suppose I believe.
> 
> I don't want to, but there is just some wierd unexplainable shit.
> 
> It's really bad when my friends and me do urban-spelunking at night.  That crap just gets wierd.



-go out at night 
-get scared
-ghosts exist


----------



## iTails (Aug 11, 2011)

Do aliens from offworld count as Paranormal? If so, yes, I do believe off world aliens exist on other planets. Our universe is vast and I really think it's ignorant to say that humans are the ONLY living thing in this universe.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Aug 11, 2011)

What I've always been more curious about is how people can say "It's unexplained or unidentified" and "It MUST be this!" in the same breath. Like they don't understand what the U in UFO means.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Aug 11, 2011)

Extra 'energy'? You mean like heat? Those are conducted into the corpse's surroundings. Is this so hard?


----------



## BRN (Aug 11, 2011)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Extra 'energy'? You mean like heat? Those are conducted into the corpse's surroundings. Is this so hard?



 [yt]UoPtUl_xaSM[/yt]


----------



## Sar (Aug 11, 2011)

If aliens do exist, I like their logic in going after people with really shit camera equipment.


----------



## LizardKing (Aug 11, 2011)

Token xkcd link

Until someone has better proof than bullshit only made interesting because of apophenia and pareidolia, or vague stories of "unexplained events", then I'll continue to consider the paranormal to be an invisible pink unicorn.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Aug 11, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> What I've always been more curious about is how people can say "It's unexplained or unidentified" and "It MUST be this!" in the same breath. Like they don't understand what the U in UFO means.


I heard a spooky noise last night that no one can explain.  QED it was a ghost.


----------



## DW_ (Aug 11, 2011)

LizardKing said:


> Token xkcd link
> 
> Until someone has better proof than bullshit only made interesting because of apophenia and pareidolia, or vague stories of "unexplained events", then I'll continue to consider the paranormal to be an invisible pink *elephant*.



FTFY and Ollie the Magic Bum reference.

M. Le Renard: Or.. it could have been..

*suspenseful music*

YOUR IMAGINATION.


Yeah I'm a partypooper. Shoot me.


----------



## Bliss (Aug 11, 2011)

M. Le Renard said:


> I heard a spooky noise last night that no one can explain.  QED it was a ghost.


No, it was obviously a vampire.


----------



## iTails (Aug 11, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> No, it was obviously a vampire.


No silly, it was aliumz. They were sneaking around his house wondering why he dresses like an animal.


----------



## DW_ (Aug 11, 2011)

iTails said:


> No silly, it was aliumz. They were sneaking around his house wondering why he dresses like an animal.



AHHHHHHHHHH ALIENS ALIENS ALIENS!!!!!!!! AREA 51 ACTUALLY EXISTS!!!!!!!!

Or, more realistically, it was your ears playing tricks on you.



			
				Lizzie said:
			
		

> No, it was obviously a vampire.



What are you implying? >.>


----------



## Bliss (Aug 11, 2011)

TheDW said:


> What are you implying? >.>


I'm about to go to see Twilight and become a sparkly one. :V


----------



## DW_ (Aug 11, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> I'm about to go to see Twilight and become a sparkly one. :V



Get me a gun.

PLEASE.

I would like to shoot myself at least five times in the temple.

I've said all I need to in the other two posts.


----------



## BRN (Aug 11, 2011)

TheDW said:


> I've said all I need to in the other two posts.


You understand that MLR was being satirical, right?


----------



## moriko (Aug 11, 2011)

Conker said:


> http://www.cracked.com/article_18828_the-creepy-scientific-explanation-behind-ghost-sightings.html
> 
> Pretty much this



Brb, going in public producing noises from 7-10hz. *trollface*

Been to an abandoned mental hospital in winter in the basement where there are no windows with a maglight and beat stick for protection. Creepy? Yes. So silent and dark your mind can play tricks on you? Yes. Boogie men sneaking around doing nothing but to try and scare you into thinking he exists? Nope. Urban exploring is fun, though I'd recommend always having a partner around in case something happens!


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Aug 11, 2011)

I believe there are ghosts and spirits around us. I've heard, seen and felt it.
But I HATE when others make jokes about ghosts or make fake vids about them.


----------



## LizardKing (Aug 11, 2011)

Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> I've heard, seen and felt it.



Do tell.


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Aug 11, 2011)

Happened long ago, so i don't remember all too well. I was like 5 or something. I saw some figures in our back forest, i went to take a closer look, and saw they were sorta transparent. and in a blink they were gone.
A couple of years later i felt this cold hand or something on my shoulder, and i heard my name being called. I truned to look and surprise surprise, nothing there.
 Next week i almost got hit by a car, but that has more to do with my own hastyness than ghosts.


----------



## Bliss (Aug 11, 2011)

Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> Happened long ago, so i don't remember all too well. I was like 5 or something. I saw some figures in our back forest, i went to take a closer look, and saw they were sorta transparent. and in a blink they were gone.
> A couple of years later i felt this cold hand or something on my shoulder, and i heard my name being called. I truned to look and surprise surprise, nothing there.


"OMG this cannot be my imagination!"


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Aug 11, 2011)

Maybe i'm just mad man who has brains playing tricks.


----------



## moriko (Aug 11, 2011)

It's pretty common to "hear your name" and chills are things that can be brought on by the environment on a subconscious level. Apparently some audio at levels below our ability to interpret can induce these feelings. If someone can have a lucid dream without trying and wake up thinking of how real it was, having trouble when picking it apart from reality, then I could readily believe that the subconscious part of my brain can affect me while I'm awake if something provokes it.

If someone wants to get to detailed into that, then I can try to get my sister (Major in psych and about to go to post-grad for it) to explain what my googling ability can't. :V

edit: By common I mean it's common for it to happen to people, but not always common as in a common occurrence in a single persons day.


----------



## DW_ (Aug 11, 2011)

SIX said:


> You understand that MLR was being satirical, right?



Yes and so was I.


----------



## VoidBat (Aug 11, 2011)

Not a believer.
All this talk about people feeling and seeing things at abandoned hospitals, community centres for the eldery and whatnot sounds like bogus to me. To feel "odd" or strange at these locations is nothing unnatural or has something to do with paranormal activities. People have died there, that's it. That's what you're sensing, not the "spirits from beyond".


----------



## Xenke (Aug 11, 2011)

http://d.facdn.net/art/budzbunny/1313085660.budzbunny_ghost_nat_05.jpg

Obviously real. Yep. Absolutely no other explanation for this picture whatsoever.


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Aug 11, 2011)

Xenke said:


> http://d.facdn.net/art/budzbunny/1313085660.budzbunny_ghost_nat_05.jpg
> 
> Obviously real. Yep. Absolutely no other explanation for this picture whatsoever.


Just as real as these


----------



## LizardKing (Aug 11, 2011)

Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> Happened long ago, so i don't remember all too well. I was like 5 or something.



I'm sorry, what? 5 years old? If a 5 year old kid told you he saw Santa Claus, would you believe him? Hell, I remember freaking out about giant spiders when I was older than that. 



Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> A couple of years later



7 years old?



Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> Next week i almost got hit by a car, but that has more to do with my own hastyness than ghosts.



So still 7 years old, and nothing to do with ghosts. At all.

What an anti-climax :c


----------



## Unsilenced (Aug 11, 2011)

Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> Maybe i'm just mad man who has brains playing tricks.



Hearing stuff, especially your own name, is actually pretty common. Your brain is wired to be able to pick up your name very well. You can hear your name from father away than you can hear any other word. This is because your brain has a larger "margin of error" for things that it can pick up and consider to be your name. The result is that your brain can pick up things that actually *aren't* your name, and interpret them as if they were. 

There are also a number of things that can cause you to see movement that isn't there, especially in the dark. Our brain likes picking up patterns, even when there aren't any.


----------



## Sar (Aug 11, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> What I've always been more curious about is how people can say "It's unexplained or unidentified" and "It MUST be this!" in the same breath. Like they don't understand what the U in UFO means.



Hmm, when it has identified, 
its just a flying object.

The other problem is when it lands. 
Then you have just seen an O.


----------



## BRN (Aug 11, 2011)

Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> But I HATE when others make jokes about ghosts or make fake vids about them.



As opposed to when they make... what? Real vids?

Any and all videos are fake. The idea that someone is filming "a ghost" means it was premeditated. The focus on "look here's proof" means you're look at it with the intent to see proof - which of course, there isn't any, because you can't prove the existence of something that doesn't exist. The idea that someone was _accidentally_ filming,  when a ghost appears, always turns out to be a crackpot hallucination, mis-perception, or just plain bullshit. And lastly, someone can genuinely believe they've seen a ghost and just unfortunately weren't carrying a camera at the time. In which case, their "proof" is as solid as me saying I saw a unicorn.

By the way, I saw a unicorn when I was five. I really did.


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 11, 2011)

i was told salt in a jar scares aliens away


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Aug 11, 2011)

Clayton said:


> i was told salt in a jar scares aliens away



What do you do with it? Throw it at them like a salt/glass grenade?


----------



## 8-bit (Aug 11, 2011)

Slenderman.


----------



## Xenke (Aug 11, 2011)

Enderman.


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 11, 2011)

dinosaurdammit said:


> What do you do with it? Throw it at them like a salt/glass grenade?


put it in your doorway


----------



## Belluavir (Aug 11, 2011)

My refigerator is making grinding noises, I think it must be haunted, it's pretty old so it makes sense.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Aug 11, 2011)

Belluavir said:


> My refigerator is making grinding noises, I think it must be haunted, it's pretty old so it makes sense.



Filled with the spirits of past lunch meats.


----------



## Elric (Aug 11, 2011)

I feel that a thread about aliens is immanent. However, after doing some researching on disproving the existance of ghosts, I can see how they don't exist. Although I kind of knew that already, and typically its just your mind playing silly tricks on you.

Oh, and slenderman is waiting outside my window


----------



## Commiecomrade (Aug 12, 2011)

SIX said:


> By the way, I saw a unicorn when I was five. I really did.



OH MY GOD REALLY? Awesome!

As you can see, I'm no believer.


----------



## Sar (Aug 12, 2011)

Elric said:


> Oh, and slenderman is waiting outside my window


Fuck, busted. :V


----------



## FlynnCoyote (Aug 12, 2011)

I`m an animist, so I believe in the supernatural. Paranormal is not a word I like to use. 

That said, I don`t believe in the full range of supernatural things, but I do think there`s more to the world and the universe than what we can observe.


----------



## Sar (Aug 12, 2011)

Ishtar5 said:


> I`m an animist, so I believe in the supernatural. Paranormal is not a word I like to use.
> 
> That said, I don`t believe in the full range of supernatural things, but I do think there`s more to the world and the universe than what we can observe.



I also believe that supernatural beings exist in a way beyond imagination.


----------



## iTails (Aug 12, 2011)

Sup guys. I herd you liek aliens. So me and this alien are watching porn.

p.s. not shooped, real shitz.
(sfw btw)


----------



## AmaterasuDen (Aug 12, 2011)

I know this is not paranormal, but you guys ever do lucid dreaming? It's like your trippin' on drugs x3


----------



## BRN (Aug 12, 2011)

Sarukai said:


> I also believe that supernatural beings exist in a way beyond imagination.



I believe that the term 'supernatural' is a contradiction and 'a way beyond imagination' is a fallacy.


----------



## Sar (Aug 12, 2011)

SIX said:


> I believe that the term 'supernatural' is a contradiction and 'a way beyond imagination' is a fallacy.


Yet supernatural is still a theme asscociated with paranormal ideas. 
The fallacy is a figure of speech. If it wasnt a figure of speech, the whole sentence is a paradox.

This thread needs some scientific POVs.




AmaterasuDen said:


> I know this is not paranormal, but you guys  ever do lucid dreaming? It's like your trippin' on drugs x3


 


iTails said:


> Sup guys. I herd you liek aliens. So me and this alien are watching porn.
> 
> p.s. not shooped, real shitz.
> (sfw btw)



No. Just no.


----------



## anero (Aug 12, 2011)

skeleton popped out etc

i'm quite partial to SCP-096, a creature that's docile until you look at its face, after which it will try (and inevitably succeed in) killing you and eliminating all traces, and yes, _pixels_ count, so you could mistakenly see it in a tiny 7x7 spot that you don't even notice and then the next thing you see is


----------



## BRN (Aug 12, 2011)

Sarukai said:


> Yet supernatural is still a theme asscociated with paranormal ideas.
> The fallacy is a figure of speech. If it wasnt a figure of speech, the whole sentence is a paradox.



A figure of speech meaning _what?_ A meaningless phrase can't really be used to say "ghosts exist", and the phrase "ghosts exist but only in ways I can't imagine" seems silly.


----------



## Sar (Aug 12, 2011)

SIX said:


> A figure of speech meaning _what?_ A meaningless phrase can't really be used to say "ghosts exist", and the phrase "ghosts exist but only in ways I can't imagine" seems silly.


TL;DR If they exist, they would be nothing like how they are portrayed in popular culture.


----------



## moonchylde (Aug 12, 2011)

I don't care for the term "supernatural", as it would literally mean "outside of nature", and that would presume that we know everything there is to know about nature and the universe. Paranormal fits better, because it means "outside of the norm" and humans have a very limited view of what is normal. 

As for ghosts and the like, I'm an amateur ghost hunter/urban spelunker in my spare time, and honestly 99.9% of the time, there's a logical, non-paranormal explanation for the "hauntings." It's that .1%, though, that helps me keep an open mind. Everything else, well, I'm a half-gypsy shaman, so I guess it goes without saying that I'm a spiritual person, and I've seen a lot of things over the years that defy rational explanation. So, yeah, I believe in the paranormal, I just don't believe most people about the paranormal. 

BTW, I know this is beating a dead horse, but to everyone who says "I've never seen it, so I don't believe in it," I've never seen the Pacific Ocean. Obviously this means it doesn't exist, all the pictures of it are hoaxes, and everyone who claims to have seen it are lying or insane. That makes sense, right? :V


----------



## Sar (Aug 12, 2011)

moonchylde said:


> but to everyone who says "I've never seen it, so I don't believe in it," I've never seen the Pacific Ocean. Obviously this means it doesn't exist, all the pictures of it are hoaxes, and everyone who claims to have seen it are lying or insane. That makes sense, right? :V



You sir, make sense. *shakes hand*


----------



## BRN (Aug 12, 2011)

Sarukai said:


> TL;DR If they exist, they would be nothing like how they are portrayed in popular culture.



I could make an 'if' statement about anything on the condition that they existed. That doesn't say anything about their actual ability to exist.Â¯\(Â°_o)/Â¯


----------



## LizardKing (Aug 12, 2011)

moonchylde said:


> BTW, I know this is beating a dead horse, but to everyone who says "I've never seen it, so I don't believe in it," I've never seen the Pacific Ocean. Obviously this means it doesn't exist, all the pictures of it are hoaxes, and everyone who claims to have seen it are lying or insane. That makes sense, right? *:V*



I'm really hoping that ":V" at the end means, "This is a ridiculous argument and I know it". I wish people would stop abusing the poor guy as an excuse to post rubbish :c


----------



## BRN (Aug 12, 2011)

moonchylde said:


> BTW, I know this is beating a dead horse, but to everyone who says "I've never seen it, so I don't believe in it," I've never seen the Pacific Ocean. Obviously this means it doesn't exist, all the pictures of it are hoaxes, and everyone who claims to have seen it are lying or insane. That makes sense, right? :V



The problem here is that you're analogizing "I've never seen the Pacific Ocean, so I don't believe in it" to "Nobody anywhere has ever seen anything paranormal, yet I still believe in it."


----------



## moonchylde (Aug 12, 2011)

One, the statement was an analogy of "I've never seen it, so it doesn't exist." On one hand, I can understand where people come from on this, although your blanket statement of "Nobody anywhere" smacks of extreme arrogance, in that you believe you speak for everyone who has ever existed. I believe in the paranormal because I, personally, have experiences that defy all rational explanation. Other people haven't. That's fine and dandy, but you don't hear me questioning their sanity because they don't believe in the paranormal (however, I do believe that there are some people out there that could have a ghost pop up right in front of them and they'd still try to rationalize it away, because it wouldn't fit in their own view of what's real... "A bit of undigested sausage," in the words of Scrooge). A bit of the same respect would be nice, is all I'm saying. 

It's funny how a lot of skeptics will not even entertain the notion that there may be more to the universe then they can see, yet they accept without hesitation the thought of quarks and string theory, which NO ONE has ever seen with their own eyes. 

You can pick apart my analogies all you wish, and mock my sanity without ever actually knowing me, but I know what I have seen. I'd be more then happy to accept a scientific explanation, as soon as science stops giving the knee-jerk "They're crazy, lying, or both" response every time the subject comes up.


----------



## BRN (Aug 12, 2011)

moonchylde said:


> One, the statement was an analogy of "I've never seen it, so it doesn't exist."On one hand, I can understand where people come from on this, although your blanket statement of "Nobody anywhere" smacks of extreme arrogance, in that you believe you speak for everyone who has ever existed.


So... who has actually seen something paranormal, then?




> I believe in the paranormal because I, personally, have experiences that defy all rational explanation.


 Share them. You can't just _say_ stuff and expect it to be taken as fact.



> It's funny how a lot of skeptics will not even entertain the notion that there may be more to the universe then they can see,


 Thus the nature of skepticism? 


> yet they accept without hesitation the thought of quarks and string theory, which NO ONE has ever seen with their own eyes.


-Quarks are accepted because while they cannot be seen, that is simply because they are too small to be seen with the naked eye, while their presence and the resulting _effects_ of their presence are very much extremely visible.
-String Theory is a 'theory' and as such is a _hypothetical_ and has not yet been accepted universally. However, insofar as it appears to be the only scientific theory that can rescue thermodynamics [on which most of our physical science is based and is a requirement of the universe] from the entropy-devouring nature of black holes the logical law of necessity dictates that the theory be given credence.
 -Ghosts and the paranormal have no empirical evidence, do not comply with physical law, are an arbitrary, stand-alone idea that have no meritable influence on anything else that can be measured, require death to be something less than death, and are as scientifically creditable as the idea of God.



> You can pick apart my analogies all you wish, and mock my sanity without ever actually knowing me, but I know what I have seen. I'd be more then happy to accept a scientific explanation, as soon as science stops giving the knee-jerk "They're crazy, lying, or both" response every time the subject comes up.


I picked apart your analogy because it was a broken analogy. Even you knew that, because you put a :V at the end of it. I don't know what you have seen, because for some reason you'll only vaguely reference the fact that you've seen _something_. I have not once attacked your sanity, only the sanity of people suffering from hallucinations. And, lastly, scientific response is never knee-jerk. It's logical. It's reasoned. That's why it's scientific.


----------



## Elric (Aug 12, 2011)

I would think that it would be hard to go to a "haunted" area and *not* see hullucinations of ghosts. Especially when you expect to see one.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Aug 12, 2011)

A lot of people seem to mistake "Grossly Mistaken" for crazy, and thus take it personally whenever their views are questioned. People can jump to false conclusions, be misguided, misremember, mishear, or even have brief hallucinations without neccissarily being completely insane.

 The craziness comes AFTER the fact, when they fervently, stridently, even violently protect these false beliefs despite all evidence pointing elsewhere. :V


----------



## Lobar (Aug 12, 2011)

moonchylde said:


> BTW, I know this is beating a dead horse, but to everyone who says "I've never seen it, so I don't believe in it," I've never seen the Pacific Ocean. Obviously this means it doesn't exist, all the pictures of it are hoaxes, and everyone who claims to have seen it are lying or insane. That makes sense, right? :V


 
Parsimony.  The conspiracy it would take to convince the world an ocean that isn't there exists is far more improbable than the ocean itself.  The same does not hold true for ghosts.


----------



## FlynnCoyote (Aug 13, 2011)

There seems to be some misconception about the meaning of _supernatural_. 

It does not mean existing outside of nature, the intended meaning is that it does exist naturally but is not yet understood by science. 


Ergo, there could be a scientific explanation for the existence of ghosts and an afterlife, but due to our limited perceptions and observation ability, we simply cannot comprehend or understand them. Therefore we apply the term supernatural to them. Demonic entities and such can also fall into this category.


----------



## Unsilenced (Aug 13, 2011)

If something is "supernatural" because it's not fully understood then pretty much everything falls in that category.


----------



## BRN (Aug 13, 2011)

Ishtar5 said:


> There seems to be some misconception about the meaning of _supernatural_.
> 
> It does not mean existing outside of nature, the intended meaning is that it does exist naturally but is not yet understood by science.
> 
> ...



I contend that you misunderstand the meaning of science. What you're attempting to claim here is:

-we cannot comprehend or understand a scientifically sound theory that supports ghosts
-this is because science fails to comprehend or understand ghosts
-ghosts exist, and it is science that fails to support them

What you're contending _starts from the supposition that ghosts exist_ and works from that assumption to lead into the argument that science fails.

The fallacy here is that the logic you're attempting to use has no method of falsification. By claiming that "x exists because, although science doesn't support it, x doesn't require science", you allow "x" to be anything. 

Ideas can only be scientifically sound _if you can comprehend a way to disprove the idea._ For example, String Theory is sound because, should someone discover that reality is different to what the theory would expect us to see, then we would be able to prove String Theory false. However, by placing ghosts outside the limitations of science, you attempt to claim that ghosts exist regardless of sensible comprehension. Because of that, there exists no possible way to find out whether or not ghosts exist.

Thus your argument says nothing about whether or not the supernatural exists - and only, in fact, renders the idea of the 'supernatural' utterly abitrary.


----------



## Onnes (Aug 13, 2011)

Ishtar5 said:


> It does not mean existing outside of nature, the intended meaning is that it does exist naturally but is not yet understood by science.



As any dictionary will tell you, "supernatural" is defined to mean something unexplainable by science. The word literally translates as "above nature," meaning phenomena outside of natural law.



			
				Six said:
			
		

> For example, String Theory is sound because, should someone discover  that reality is different to what the theory would expect us to see,  then we would be able to prove String Theory false.



String Theory is not a good example here. The term "String Theory" actually refers to a gigantic class of theories. and it is not necessarily possible to falsify all of them.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Aug 13, 2011)

What SIX said.  Getting proof of the existence of ghosts probably wouldn't be that hard, given the current definition, but what you get is a lot is people who, upon seeing that their original hypothesis is proven false, arbitrarily change the definition and hence the required proof.  Well, I don't need to tell you that kind of thing can go on forever.
Not to mention, the reason so many people are skeptical (and why so many people just deny it outright) is because there's currently no possible physical explanation to account for spirits or the soul (if it's energy, what force is keeping it localized enough to form a shape, and why don't we see that force anywhere else in nature [i.e., why confine it to certain types of animals and not others?  You don't hear too many stories about ghost-spiders, or ghost frogs, etc.]?  If it's particles, where are they, what are they, and how do they interact with regular matter?  And why don't we see strange interactions all the time in particle physics experiments?  Are all the 'ghost particles' localized somewhere else, like in haunted buildings?  If so, why no strays [again, what force interacts only with ghost particles and nothing else]?  Etc.), and all the evidence anyone has ever come up with has either been a hoax (admitted as such or proven as such) or just plain ambiguous.  And people have been looking into this stuff forever, and that's all we can come up with apparently.
Watch those ghost-hunter shows.  See how arbitrary their definitions and methods are, and realize that this kind of method is where most 'proof' of paranormal activity comes from.  When people do actual investigations of the stuff, they always find a reasonable alternative explanation.  We'll have proof when you can do a good experiment that concludes that the only possible explanation is something resembling a ghost.  Otherwise you're just making shit up to fill in the gaps.  And anyone can do _that_.


----------



## Bliss (Aug 13, 2011)

M. Le Renard said:


> Watch those ghost-hunter shows.  See how arbitrary their definitions and methods are, and realize that this kind of method is where most 'proof' of paranormal activity comes from.  When people do actual investigations of the stuff, they always find a reasonable alternative explanation.  We'll have proof when you can do a good experiment that concludes that the only possible explanation is something resembling a ghost.  Otherwise you're just making shit up to fill in the gaps.  And anyone can do _that_.


They're good entertainment, nonetheless. I like spooky. :3


----------



## M. LeRenard (Aug 13, 2011)

They are fun.  It's a kind of 'turn your brain off and enjoy' television.  The problem is that a lot of people take them seriously.
Although they tend to get really boring when they do it live (which they've done a few times), because then they don't have the power of editing to make it more interesting.  On that British one, they were in the Winchester mansion, and the female lead basically just walked into a room with the lights off, stumbled around in the dark for about five minutes calling out someone's name, and then left when nothing happened.  Wow, that was exciting.  That's the kind of thing they would cut for the regular show.


----------



## Bliss (Aug 13, 2011)

M. Le Renard said:


> British one


That one British is just hilariously of low quality... naturally, it was a hoax.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Aug 13, 2011)

Lies or eye trickery with multiple causes. No reason to believe such things without an explanation an ape could understand. 

There are limits to living beings, and dead beings don't move - they rot and get eaten by worms. Spirits don't come out of your body, as only internal organs come out of your chest when you hack it open. Hearing noises? Blame the wind, or your brain. People calling your name? Might as well be recent memories that rewind. Seeing figures in the dark? Your eyes didn't adapt to the darkness.


I cannot believe people who say that they've had experiences with paranormal beings. For some reason, they never seem to fully recall it. Holes in a haux, or a nightmare you had twenty years ago. Ethereal beings like that cannot be alive, but cannot be dead. If it's not 0(Alive) or 1(Dead), it must not exist.

Actually, I have a better idea. Why do we even need to think about this? After all, it's not going anywhere. It'd be impossible to believe such a thing anyway, as it's possible to fake such thing in two clicks. You should probably concentrate on things that are within our reach.


----------



## moonchylde (Aug 14, 2011)

See, there in lies the problem.  Everyone wants proof, but no one would believe it anyway. "For the true believer, no proof is necessary. For the true skeptic, no proof will do." And so we argue semantics with neither side making any progress.  Someone said earlier that I should tell my stories and I assume share what evidence I have, as to back up my claims. What's the point? I could load dozens of pictures, and hours of EVP and video recordings, but I'd just be called a liar, so why bother? Yes, I've had experiences I can't explain, no, a lot of people will never believe me no matter what evidence I might find, and no I really don't care, although it is a little insulting that people seem to make assumptions about my intelligence because I don't believe what they do. Anymore, it seems like the skeptics and the fundies have more in common then either side wants to admit.


----------



## Hendly Devin (Aug 14, 2011)

John fucking Denver haunts my basement!


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Aug 14, 2011)

moonchylde said:


> What's the point?


 
The point is they don't believe you because of your imagined dogma, they don't believe you because your evidence is bad.


----------



## CAThulu (Aug 14, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> The point is they don't believe you because of your imagined dogma, they don't believe you because your evidence is bad.



I've heard the same thing said by creationists about Carbon Dating.  The same arguement can be used by the skeptic as by the believer (with or without the dogma depending on the person's viewpoint, of course).

A man who chooses not to see will remain blind to whatever evidence is placed before him.


----------



## CAThulu (Aug 14, 2011)

Onnes said:


> As any dictionary will tell you, "supernatural" is defined to mean something unexplainable by science. The word literally translates as "above nature," meaning phenomena outside of natural law.



I think  in this case the word shouldn't be supernatural, but preternatural.





> The _preternatural_ or _praeternatural_ is that, which appears outside or beyond (Latin _prÃ¦ter_) the natural. In contrast to the supernatural, preternatural phenomena are presumed to have rational explanations that are, as of yet, unknown.
> 
> The term is often used to distinguish from the divine  (supernatural) while maintaining a distinction from known and  understood nature in any given culture and time period. For instance, in  the Abrahamic religions, the angels,  both holy and fallen, are endowed with preternatural powers. Their  intellect, speed, and other characteristics are explained to be beyond  the capabilities of humans, but still limited or finite
> 
> Non-human examples of preternatural powers are also recognized in  mythology and folklore. An example of a preternatural animal would be if  the Yeti or Bigfoot legends had a basis in fact.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Aug 14, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> I've heard the same thing said by creationists about Carbon Dating.  The same arguement can be used by the skeptic as by the believer (with or without the dogma depending on the person's viewpoint, of course).
> 
> A man who chooses not to see will remain blind to whatever evidence is placed before him.


 
Creationists have long been known to engage in cargo cult science to make them seem more credible. The distinction comes when you have people who are actually interested in learning, and those who only want to appear that way.

Just keep in mind he was actually asked to show what he's got, and he chose to harangue us instead of backing it up. :V


----------



## BRN (Aug 14, 2011)

moonchylde said:


> What's the point? I could load dozens of pictures, and hours of EVP and video recordings, but I'd just be called a liar



 At the moment I have no reason to believe you have a single photo, EVP, or video recording, since you're utterly and unreasonably against the idea of sharing the evidence _that you have_ for the argument that _you're_ trying to make.

  If your evidence is actual evidence, then it's only reasonable that I assume that ghosts exist. However, once more, you've only made the largely redundant statement "I have evidence but I'm not going to show you it." There is no purpose in even valuing any of your claims, as despite _claims_ of evidence, you refuse to prove even the existence of that evidence (let alone proving the existence of ghosts by using it).

You've told us you've got stories of encounters, _but won't share any of those stories._ You've claimed to have media to cite as evidence, _but won't share any of that media_. And the reason you won't share? "Herp derp you'll believe it's valueless"? It must be pretty weak evidence, if you won't even attempt to use it.

I'm inclined to think the reason you won't share is because you know your evidence isn't parsimonious _evidence_ so much as something you've derived false hope from.


----------



## Lobar (Aug 14, 2011)

moonchylde said:


> See, there in lies the problem.  Everyone wants proof, but no one would believe it anyway. "For the true believer, no proof is necessary. For the true skeptic, no proof will do." And so we argue semantics with neither side making any progress.  Someone said earlier that I should tell my stories and I assume share what evidence I have, as to back up my claims. What's the point? I could load dozens of pictures, and hours of EVP and video recordings, but I'd just be called a liar, so why bother? Yes, I've had experiences I can't explain, no, a lot of people will never believe me no matter what evidence I might find, and no I really don't care, although it is a little insulting that people seem to make assumptions about my intelligence because I don't believe what they do. Anymore, it seems like the skeptics and the fundies have more in common then either side wants to admit.



Wank, wank, wank.  "You didn't give me the answer I wanted, therefore dogma."  Bullshit.  Quantum physics is a prime example of an extremely counterintuitive concept that skeptics and scientists have accepted, _because the evidence warranted it_.  Were we dogmatic Newton-worshippers, we might still be trying to come up with explanations that could preserve the existence of the luminiferous aether.  But the _only_ reason people jump from evidence like "vague, unreproducable electromagnetic disturbance" to the conclusion of "non-corporeal, physics-defying remnants of dead people" is that it's such a pervasive and deeply-embeded cultural concept as to already have a single-word name for it: "ghosts".  Which does nothing to demonstrate it's actually _true_.



CAThulu said:


> I've heard the same thing said by creationists about Carbon Dating.  The same arguement can be used by the skeptic as by the believer.



Radiometric dating is pretty easily independently verified, creationists just choose not to.  There's actually about a dozen different radiometric "clocks" in addition to carbon-14, each with a different range of ages they can test, commonly used in science.  As it happens, the ranges of those clocks _all overlap with each other_, making any one clock's accuracy verifiable by another clock.  As for verifying the concept of radiometric dating as a whole, all you have to do is date objects of a known age, and see if it matches.  And as it so happens, there's plenty of several-thousand-year-old trees around, whose age can be determined _to the year_ simply by counting their rings.  Creationists have only themselves to blame for their ignorance.


----------



## moonchylde (Aug 14, 2011)

SIX said:


> At the moment I have no reason to believe you have a single photo, EVP, or video recording, since you're utterly and unreasonably against the idea of sharing the evidence that you have for the argument that you're trying to make.
> 
> If your evidence is actual evidence, then it's only reasonable that I assume that ghosts exist. However, once more, you've only made the largely redundant statement "I have evidence but I'm not going to show you it." There is no purpose in even valuing any of your claims, as despite claims of evidence, you refuse to prove even the existence of that evidence (let alone proving the existence of ghosts by using it).
> 
> ...



OK, you've completely missed the point of what I was saying. What I was trying to say was I'm not going to convince you of anything, since your mind has been made up on the subject long before now, and nothing I can say will change this... so let's walk away before we end up resorting to insults and baseless acusations. Apparently this isn't possible. As for why I would make such an assumption that any evidence or personal experience I could share would be disbelived, well, I actually read this thread all the way through and seen this stated several times. And as for how I'd assume out of hand that you wouldn't take me seriously no matter what argument or evidence I gave, well:



SIX said:


> Less diplomatically phrased, ghosts are for the mentally broken or mentally deficient.



I thought I made it abundantly clear in my very first post that I do not go into a "haunted" house expecting to see ghosts. I go in and attempt to DISPROVE the idea that it's haunted. And the vast majority of the time, yes, I can find reasonable scientific explanations in these situations (you want an example? February 2009, Lexington, KY. They said blood would pool in the middle of the living room floor at random. Random turned out to be every time it rained. Turned out the floor wasn't level, and the the walls were full of rotting leaves. Result? Reddish water pooling in the lowest part of the floor) . It's the very few, when no matter how many times I attempt to disprove it, I cannot find a reasonable explanation, that causes me to keep an open mind to the possibility that something's there beyond what science can explain. We can argue semantics all day long, but what would be the point? 

I'm done with this argument. Just done. Lets all walk away with our dignity intact, OK?


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Aug 15, 2011)

moonchylde said:


> *Insinuates Dogmatism again*
> 
> *Implying that's not an insult/baseless acusation*
> 
> *Still refuses to actually give the reasons he believes in what he does*


 
:V One instance of being skeptical does not a skeptic make. Now will you stop dancing around it and just tell us already? Some of us are actually honestly curious.


----------



## LizardKing (Aug 15, 2011)

This is almost like that alchemy thread. Except without the pictures. Or the hilarity.


----------



## General-jwj (Aug 15, 2011)

I sense divergence of opinion and exasperation. Count me in.


----------



## Commiecomrade (Aug 16, 2011)

My own mother believes in shit like people who have talked to the Virgin Mary or people who claim they can heal by touching.

Usually she seems so intelligent.


----------



## General-jwj (Aug 16, 2011)

The weird thing is, I'm cool with people believing in "the paranormal" in the mainstream definition (meaning ghosts, mythical animals, etc ...) but whenever people start talking about religion (it's almost the same thing, when you think about it ...) I get pissed.

I don't understand it myself.

As far as the subject of this thread is concerned, I'm like a pragmatic agnostic when it comes to the paranormal : I don't know whether it exists or not and I don't care much.


----------



## Dreaming (Aug 16, 2011)

Elric said:


> Also another question, there are theories on how spirits exist such as the extra energy that leaves your body has to go somewhere and yadda yadda or something of the sort. Do you have any theories of how they can exist?


I've heard a theory that they are basically 'reflections' from parallel dimensions, so far it seems like the most believable theory.


----------



## BRN (Aug 16, 2011)

AmerÃ­kumaÃ°urÃšlfur said:


> I've heard a theory that they are basically 'reflections' from parallel dimensions, so far it seems like the most believable theory.



How could something from another dimension feasibly interact with our own?


----------



## FlynnCoyote (Aug 16, 2011)

AmerÃ­kumaÃ°urÃšlfur said:


> I've heard a theory that they are basically 'reflections' from parallel dimensions, so far it seems like the most believable theory.



Based on what I know of physics, I doubt this. A more likely explanation is that these energies exist in a dimension we can`t normally perceive. Russian scientists are studying it I think. If it turns out to be a recordable energy, it could go a long way to helping us understand it.


----------



## General-jwj (Aug 16, 2011)

Though my grasp of physics (even on a basic level) is pretty shaky at best, I have heard of theories implying that some forms of energy could possibly travel from one dimension to the next (though it was all speculation).

The context was that they were proving that gravity was an extremely weak force compared to others in the universe (magnetism and so forth) so that a plausible explanation for this discrepancy was that a part of that force was somehow transfered to another dimension.

Since I have no idea how that shit works I can't really tell if it sounds legit or not, but my physics teacher liked the idea at the time, so there's that.


----------



## BRN (Aug 16, 2011)

Ishtar5 said:


> Based on what I know of physics, I doubt this. A more likely explanation is that these energies exist in a dimension we can`t normally perceive. Russian scientists are studying it I think. If it turns out to be a recordable energy, it could go a long way to helping us understand it.


 


General-jwj said:


> Though my grasp of physics (even on a basic level) is pretty shaky at best, I have heard of theories implying that some forms of energy could possibly travel from one dimension to the next (though it was all speculation).
> 
> The context was that they were proving that gravity was an extremely weak force compared to others in the universe (magnetism and so forth) so that a plausible explanation for this discrepancy was that a part of that force was somehow transfered to another dimension.
> 
> Since I have no idea how that shit works I can't really tell if it sounds legit or not, but my physics teacher liked the idea at the time, so there's that.



 Energy isn't this ethereal 'thing' that defies colloquial explanation. Colloquially, it is the light glowing from a lightbulb. It's the heat of the air around that candle, it's the movement of the electrons in the copper wiring. Ghosts and the supernatural cannot be composed of energy; energy can't travel, or be created, simply transferred. It's a measure of the activity or potential activity that a particle shows. Nothing more.


----------



## General-jwj (Aug 16, 2011)

Annnd that's why I flunked both my physics exams XD

()


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Aug 16, 2011)

Yeah. If someone can't specify what kind of energy it is- Or worse, says it's "just energy", "Chi", "Life Force", "Spirit Power" etc, it's a pretty clear indicator they're talking nonsense. Especially if they throw in "Quantum" haphazardly.


----------



## Elric (Aug 16, 2011)

I wouldn't say ghosts interact with us. If ghosts actually existed and we could see them, I would think that they wouldn't be able to see us, almost like they are in a different dimension. Yes, you may hear them. Yes, you may see them. But I wouldnt think that they would _interact_ with us because they may not be aware that they are in the form of spirits.

That is, if they actually existed. Just a thought though.


----------



## Alderic (Aug 17, 2011)

I believe that there is such things as ghost and others,because i'm a spirtual person. But i think they are in a different "realm"-if you will,than we are. Therefor they don't actually interact with us..


----------



## Wreth (Aug 17, 2011)

I'm a skeptic that finds the subject interesting.


----------

