• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Are ghosts real?

Did you ever see a dog barking at nothing from this world, or a cat hissing at something unseen? They don't have that rational mind filter that humans do, so they can see manifestations of the spirit world much better than we can.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Why do I need to provid you with accounts?


It's possible in my mind. I haverepeatedly said the evidence is inconclusive. Would inconclusive evidence convince you? Where did I deny any claim that I made?

There wouldn't be any point. And what claim did I make?

Well I am a skeptic so, your evaluation of my skepticism is of no real purpose.
I am not trying to prove anything, why would I post third hand accounts?



Okay, so you think they are rational human beings?

I laid out all my cards on the op. I am not really making an argument. Read the op instead of hounding me about proof I already stated doesn't exist.

If I called you a bigot it's because you express that your opinion is correct and are intolerant of the opinion of others. But I don't believe I called you a bigot. No it isn't and I didn't say you are closed minded I said you are narrow minded. That is your right and it isn't my right to suggest that you should be open minded. But if you want to play victim, be my guest.

So being open to the possibility that there are paranormal things equals lack of logic? That's a stretch. You are going to have to find tune that statement for me to take it seriously.

Using your logic, perhaps not. But if everybody shared your logic we wouldn't be having this discussion. Some are from people just starting what they experienced. There may not be a claim at all. They carry circumstantial evidence.

I am sorry I don't share your opinion that this is all make believe. Your argument only further solidifies my opinion.
Click to expand...

You keep stating that the paranormal is not "make believe" the insist that you dont need to back that claim. That would be true if you hadnt made this thread and titled it:Are ghosts real?

You started with this very obvious positive claim: "I don't necessarily believe that they are entirely made up."

ANd at that point I thought perhaps you worded it wrong. SO I read on and found post after post where you confirmed a positive cliam that ghosts are possible. You even went further and assumed ghost (for a lack of a better term) exist in some shape or form that we just dont know enough to know anything about them. Meanwhile you have denied your own written words.

"So I think they are demons." That sounds like you belive that ghost exist and they are demons.


"There is a lot of hearsay, eye witness testimony, thatis evidence though it's not proof."
"Why would every person that worked at the cemetery experience the same thing there?"
"Well hauntings are replicable."
"There have been cases of demonic possession."
"Like I said testimony is evidence."
"I never said ghosts where proven to be real, just that non conclusive evidence exists."
" I do believe that people tend to get carried away with freaky unexplained noises but I know several people that have had paranormal encounters, their accounts are not of things that go bump in the night, but a lot more interactive than that."
"I don't need definitive proof to accept that things we may not understand may be occurring."
"Like I said the accounts I have heard were not that simple and easily dismissed."
"Anything could exist."
"There is evidence, eyewitness accounts."
"I only claimed it could be possible. And the proof of that is that we don't know everything."
"You haven't debunked any eye witness accounts"
"They could exist in a currently unknown state that isn't perceptible by human technology."
"I made the claim that there is a possibility."
"There is something that suggests it exists, eye witness accounts. "
"It's possible in my mind"
"They carry circumstantial evidence. "
"there is no reason to completely dismiss it either."
" I call them ghosts for lack of a better word."

Now in your last post you follow all that up with a definite positive claim: "I am sorry I don't share your opinion that this is all make believe."

As well know the opposite of make believe is real. You just claimed that ghosts are real. You also repeatably stood behind eye witness accounts as being evidence: "There is evidence, eyewitness accounts." I hate to break it to you but you are not being the least bit skeptical. All of this though IMO is a excellent example why I am not a agnostic.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
You keep stating that the paranormal is not "make believe" the insist that you dont need to back that claim. That would be true if you hadnt made this thread and titled it:Are ghosts real?

You started with this very obvious positive claim: "I don't necessarily believe that they are entirely made up."

ANd at that point I thought perhaps you worded it wrong. SO I read on and found post after post where you confirmed a positive cliam that ghosts are possible. You even went further and assumed ghost (for a lack of a better term) exist in some shape or form that we just dont know enough to know anything about them. Meanwhile you have denied your own written words.

"So I think they are demons." That sounds like you belive that ghost exist and they are demons.


"There is a lot of hearsay, eye witness testimony, thatis evidence though it's not proof."
"Why would every person that worked at the cemetery experience the same thing there?"
"Well hauntings are replicable."
"There have been cases of demonic possession."
"Like I said testimony is evidence."
"I never said ghosts where proven to be real, just that non conclusive evidence exists."
" I do believe that people tend to get carried away with freaky unexplained noises but I know several people that have had paranormal encounters, their accounts are not of things that go bump in the night, but a lot more interactive than that."
"I don't need definitive proof to accept that things we may not understand may be occurring."
"Like I said the accounts I have heard were not that simple and easily dismissed."
"Anything could exist."
"There is evidence, eyewitness accounts."
"I only claimed it could be possible. And the proof of that is that we don't know everything."
"You haven't debunked any eye witness accounts"
"They could exist in a currently unknown state that isn't perceptible by human technology."
"I made the claim that there is a possibility."
"There is something that suggests it exists, eye witness accounts. "
"It's possible in my mind"
"They carry circumstantial evidence. "
"there is no reason to completely dismiss it either."
" I call them ghosts for lack of a better word."

Now in your last post you follow all that up with a definite positive claim: "I am sorry I don't share your opinion that this is all make believe."

As well know the opposite of make believe is real. You just claimed that ghosts are real. You also repeatably stood behind eye witness accounts as being evidence: "There is evidence, eyewitness accounts." I hate to break it to you but you are not being the least bit skeptical. All of this though IMO is a excellent example why I am not a agnostic.
Click to expand...

Made that same point...someone got a little pissy about it and started a basement thread in response.
 
CLAX1911 said:
I don't agree we know plenty about reality or our perception of it.

Is it a ghost in your ex's house or just your ex? :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

It's not a ghost. I've never seen a ghost but she has and that's a different story. Sorry but it's not something I care to share amongst critics, not you but you know...
 
~SAL said:
what happens there? :shock:

is that why she is your ex :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

On a deeper level it's why everyone is her ex. This entity won't let men live in her house
 
~SAL said:
maybe time for her to move... :)

there are some strange happenings out there....
Click to expand...

She'll never move and her and her girls are always safe. An entity once told one of the girls that it was there for her protection. Whatever that means.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
You keep stating that the paranormal is not "make believe" the insist that you dont need to back that claim. That would be true if you hadnt made this thread and titled it:Are ghosts real?

You started with this very obvious positive claim: "I don't necessarily believe that they are entirely made up."

ANd at that point I thought perhaps you worded it wrong. SO I read on and found post after post where you confirmed a positive cliam that Ighosts are possible. You even went further and assumed ghost (for a lack of a better term) exist in some shape or form that we just dont know enough to know anything about them. Meanwhile you have denied your own written words.

"So I think they are demons." That sounds like you belive that ghost exist and they are demons.


"There is a lot of hearsay, eye witness testimony, thatis evidence though it's not proof."
"Why would every person that worked at the cemetery experience the same thing there?"
"Well hauntings are replicable."
"There have been cases of demonic possession."
"Like I said testimony is evidence."
"I never said ghosts where proven to be real, just that non conclusive evidence exists."
" I do believe that people tend to get carried away with freaky unexplained noises but I know several people that have had paranormal encounters, their accounts are not of things that go bump in the night, but a lot more interactive than that."
"I don't need definitive proof to accept that things we may not understand may be occurring."
"Like I said the accounts I have heard were not that simple and easily dismissed."
"Anything could exist."
"There is evidence, eyewitness accounts."
"I only claimed it could be possible. And the proof of that is that we don't know everything."
"You haven't debunked any eye witness accounts"
"They could exist in a currently unknown state that isn't perceptible by human technology."
"I made the claim that there is a possibility."
"There is something that suggests it exists, eye witness accounts. "
"It's possible in my mind"
"They carry circumstantial evidence. "
"there is no reason to completely dismiss it either."
" I call them ghosts for lack of a better word."

Now in your last post you follow all that up with a definite positive claim: "I am sorry I don't share your opinion that this is all make believe."

As well know the opposite of make believe is real. You just claimed that ghosts are real. You also repeatably stood behind eye witness accounts as being evidence: "There is evidence, eyewitness accounts." I hate to break it to you but you are not being the least bit skeptical. All of this though IMO is a excellent example why I am not a agnostic.
Click to expand...

I said that it may not be make believe. And I don't have to back that up. It's my opinion if you don't like it jump in a lake.
 
serato said:
It's not a ghost. I've never seen a ghost but she has and that's a different story. Sorry but it's not something I care to share amongst critics, not you but you know...
Click to expand...
Yeah, I know.

Personally I tell those people to jump in a lake. If they don't believe it the can have a cookie, get their panties out of a bunch or demand proof until their head spins around backward. But I understand others nit wanting to deal with that.
 
CLAX1911 said:
You and freedom are crying that I need to prove something to you.

I don't.
Click to expand...

It's true, you don't. It's just that all your whining and crying is then nothing but. So congrats on that.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
You keep stating that the paranormal is not "make believe" the insist that you dont need to back that claim. That would be true if you hadnt made this thread and titled it:Are ghosts real?

You started with this very obvious positive claim: "I don't necessarily believe that they are entirely made up."

ANd at that point I thought perhaps you worded it wrong. SO I read on and found post after post where you confirmed a positive cliam that ghosts are possible. You even went further and assumed ghost (for a lack of a better term) exist in some shape or form that we just dont know enough to know anything about them. Meanwhile you have denied your own written words.

"So I think they are demons." That sounds like you belive that ghost exist and they are demons.


"There is a lot of hearsay, eye witness testimony, thatis evidence though it's not proof."
"Why would every person that worked at the cemetery experience the same thing there?"
"Well hauntings are replicable."
"There have been cases of demonic possession."
"Like I said testimony is evidence."
"I never said ghosts where proven to be real, just that non conclusive evidence exists."
" I do believe that people tend to get carried away with freaky unexplained noises but I know several people that have had paranormal encounters, their accounts are not of things that go bump in the night, but a lot more interactive than that."
"I don't need definitive proof to accept that things we may not understand may be occurring."
"Like I said the accounts I have heard were not that simple and easily dismissed."
"Anything could exist."
"There is evidence, eyewitness accounts."
"I only claimed it could be possible. And the proof of that is that we don't know everything."
"You haven't debunked any eye witness accounts"
"They could exist in a currently unknown state that isn't perceptible by human technology."
"I made the claim that there is a possibility."
"There is something that suggests it exists, eye witness accounts. "
"It's possible in my mind"
"They carry circumstantial evidence. "
"there is no reason to completely dismiss it either."
" I call them ghosts for lack of a better word."

Now in your last post you follow all that up with a definite positive claim: "I am sorry I don't share your opinion that this is all make believe."

As well know the opposite of make believe is real. You just claimed that ghosts are real. You also repeatably stood behind eye witness accounts as being evidence: "There is evidence, eyewitness accounts." I hate to break it to you but you are not being the least bit skeptical. All of this though IMO is a excellent example why I am not a agnostic.
Click to expand...

So here's a serious question on this subject. Where are all the ghosts? Seriously, where are all the ghosts?

About 107 billion people have lived before us, there are currently 7 billion people alive on the planet. If everyone got to be a ghost, that's just over 15 ghosts/person. Well that's a lot of ghosts, and it's not true because I don't have any ghosts. Damn. So 50%....50% of people become ghosts....well you're still looking at over 7 ghosts/person. And at 7 ghosts/person, the shear number of modern ghost encounters and stories would be astronomical. So it's not that. Numbers don't aggregate properly.

OK...so 1%, 1% of all people get to be ghosts. Not so many, but hey now that we look at that it's 7 people/ghost. Still pretty damned big, I mean we are talking 1 billion ghosts still and with a billion ghosts floating about there would probably be more encounters and documentation. 0.1% 70 people/ghost. Looking a bit better, yeah? But why is it that only 0.1% of people would be ghosts? Did the other 99.9% pass on untroubled into the afterlife? Maybe. 0.1% is still about 107 million ghosts....still a bunch though. And you'd expect still more documentation than exists.

So how many people turn into ghosts? And why is it with 107 Billion dead that we don't see any significant portion of that? Furthermore, why are ghost stories so predominately found in cementaries? Or abandoned buildings? Or spooky places where people are already on edge? Why not walking down the streets of NYC? Right? In fact, wouldn't the cities (particularly the old cities or one in which disaster happened) be the perfect place to see ghosts? Not some abandoned jail or wherever Ghost Adventurers likes to go. How many people have lived and died in NYC? How many live there now? With that pure number of living and dead, shouldn't it have higher numbers of ghost phenomenon? Significantly higher? But the stories are almost always restricted to the deep, the dark, the spooky. Ooooooooooooo.

So let's say most people can pass on because they've accomplished blah and to be a ghost there needs to be some resentment or some unfinished business or the ghost needs to realize it's a ghost. OK. Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki....prime ghost locations, yes? You're talking 100's of thousands killed, and in the case of the latter two almost instantaneously. Is there no better mixture for resentment, unfinished business, not realizing one is dead than flash bombing or the massive fire bombings? So where are those ghosts, it should be a higher percentage than maybe the .1% of the aggregate 107 billion. But even there, nothing above background.

So where are the ghosts? Why can't we see them? Why is it just isolated cases largely restricted to deep, scary, spooky places?

Is it because all things being equal, there are no ghosts, that the numbers just can't add up, and that more likely it's the human brain trying to make sense of something it doesn't understand or applying significance to coincidence?

One has to wonder.
 
Ikari said:
It's true, you don't. It's just that all your whining and crying is then nothing but. So congrats on that.
Click to expand...
Some of your posts and pm's would be more appropriate in the basement.

You where the one whining anyway. There's no proof, waa waa waa. When I blatantly told you there isn't

If you don't like this discussion you can not be part of it. I accept your opinion I just don't share it.
 
~SAL said:
well that could have been a spirit guide I suppose...as long as it works for them
Click to expand...


It was definitely not a spirit guide but I’m curious about that term, and for several reasons. I used to think everyone had a spirit guide watching over them every second of the day but now I’ve doubts.

Firstly, I know for certain that we have spirit protectors because they’ve come to my assistance more times than anyone should experience and that’s my fault. It’s because my curiosity wants to experience everything so I venture to places we’re not supposed to go. And I suspect I’m not to be in this place because I get my ass kicked every time while there.

Telepathic hypnosis will disable any movement and prohibit an ability to telepathically communicate, such as a cry for help. But what I discovered is you don’t need to call out because a gaggle of white orbs always help pry my eyes back open, thus allowing me to regain consciousness in this world. Without their help I’d not be able to release myself from his telepathic hold. I don’t know his name other than he owns this residence and that he has a fetish for beautiful human women. He also has multiple arms and a vibrating head that makes it difficult for me to get a good look at him. Some Indian Hindu mathematician friends of mine that live in India seem to think this might be Rama but I have no clue. Sometimes his abode is empty and other times he throws parties.

Keep in mind that this place is very real because I’ve taken others there but will never do that again because back then I wasn’t aware of just how dangerous this place is, although I’ll go back again someday when I get the nerve because it pisses me off that I don’t know the reason for his bitterness towards me.

The above experience, if to rate 1-10 on an “awesome scale” with 10 being the best, this encounter is always a 1. It’s the higher experiences that have cast doubts as to whether we have an always-watching spirit guide.

What does a spirit guide mean to you?



Nikola Tesla quotes:

“ If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration “

“ The day science begins to study the non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence “
 
CLAX1911 said:
Yeah, I know.

Personally I tell those people to jump in a lake. If they don't believe it the can have a cookie, get their panties out of a bunch or demand proof until their head spins around backward. But I understand others nit wanting to deal with that.
Click to expand...

I don't mind sharing some oobe's. Those are always fun. My last post was about one of them.
 
Ikari said:
So here's a serious question on this subject. Where are all the ghosts? Seriously, where are all the ghosts?

About 107 billion people have lived before us, there are currently 7 billion people alive on the planet. If everyone got to be a ghost, that's just over 15 ghosts/person. Well that's a lot of ghosts, and it's not true because I don't have any ghosts. Damn. So 50%....50% of people become ghosts....well you're still looking at over 7 ghosts/person. And at 7 ghosts/person, the shear number of modern ghost encounters and stories would be astronomical. So it's not that. Numbers don't aggregate properly.

OK...so 1%, 1% of all people get to be ghosts. Not so many, but hey now that we look at that it's 7 people/ghost. Still pretty damned big, I mean we are talking 1 billion ghosts still and with a billion ghosts floating about there would probably be more encounters and documentation. 0.1% 70 people/ghost. Looking a bit better, yeah? But why is it that only 0.1% of people would be ghosts? Did the other 99.9% pass on untroubled into the afterlife? Maybe. 0.1% is still about 107 million ghosts....still a bunch though. And you'd expect still more documentation than exists.

So how many people turn into ghosts? And why is it with 107 Billion dead that we don't see any significant portion of that? Furthermore, why are ghost stories so predominately found in cementaries? Or abandoned buildings? Or spooky places where people are already on edge? Why not walking down the streets of NYC? Right? In fact, wouldn't the cities (particularly the old cities or one in which disaster happened) be the perfect place to see ghosts? Not some abandoned jail or wherever Ghost Adventurers likes to go. How many people have lived and died in NYC? How many live there now? With that pure number of living and dead, shouldn't it have higher numbers of ghost phenomenon? Significantly higher? But the stories are almost always restricted to the deep, the dark, the spooky. Ooooooooooooo.

So let's say most people can pass on because they've accomplished blah and to be a ghost there needs to be some resentment or some unfinished business or the ghost needs to realize it's a ghost. OK. Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki....prime ghost locations, yes? You're talking 100's of thousands killed, and in the case of the latter two almost instantaneously. Is there no better mixture for resentment, unfinished business, not realizing one is dead than flash bombing or the massive fire bombings? So where are those ghosts, it should be a higher percentage than maybe the .1% of the aggregate 107 billion. But even there, nothing above background.

So where are the ghosts? Why can't we see them? Why is it just isolated cases largely restricted to deep, scary, spooky places?

Is it because all things being equal, there are no ghosts, that the numbers just can't add up, and that more likely it's the human brain trying to make sense of something it doesn't understand or applying significance to coincidence?

One has to wonder.
Click to expand...

I bet that people that believe in reincarnation would have problem with ghosts. If it wasnt for people believing in ghosts they would think that what they thought they saw was something else.
 
CLAX1911 said:
I said that it may not be make believe. And I don't have to back that up. It's my opinion if you don't like it jump in a lake.
Click to expand...

Could it be a chocolate milk lake for my cookies?


I made the claim that there is a possibility.
Click to expand...
You made a claim that ghosts are a possibility.

there is no reason to completely dismiss it either.
Click to expand...
Why?

I only claimed it could be possible. And the proof of that is that we don't know everything.
Click to expand...
If we dont know everything then everything in your mind is possible?

Claiming that something is possible is a positive claim that deserves an explanation on how that thing (in this case ghosts) are possible. Stating that we dont know everything doesnt cut it, since by that logic I can make up anything and assert it could be possible because we dont know everything. Like there could be beings using us as puppets because we dont know everything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom