Do you believe?

[MsUther]

Nope, I've never seen ghosts, and I suspect they're a trick of the subconscious... but I can't be 100% sure. Why the subconscious would want to do that, I'm not sure. Plus there's the fact that cultures all over the world have developed ghost mythologies, despite never having seen Scooby Doo.

I have an open mind, except when it comes to those charlatan mediums, tarot readers and ghost experts, who should be shot at dawn and fed to hungry pigs.

Q xx

I`ll just second what you said Q, since it was well said, funny and me being in a lazy sunday midday mood.

I want to add that just because we cant find solid proofs does not mean it cant be true.

[_ID_]

I want to add that just because we cant find solid proofs does not mean it cant be true.

The same can be said about any religious faith. Which is how I view the belief in ghosts, or not believing in them. If believing in them provides some sort of comfort for you somewhere, then good. If you don't also good.

V/R
ID

[JimmyJump]

The same can be said about any religious faith. Which is how I view the belief in ghosts, or not believing in them. If believing in them provides some sort of comfort for you somewhere, then good. If you don't also good.

V/R
ID

For some reason, ghosts, or other 'non-human entities' always seem to draw-in a religious flock, as if those religious folk have all the wisdom and/or sole authority when it comes to the recently (or longer) departed...

People are not religious by nature, but only become thus through outside influences... Religion has nothing to do with the possibility of the existence of ghosts... In fact, speaking in simple terms, God himself is an apparition (a burning bush, anyone?) and could be called a ghost...

I am inclined to believe that ghosts or spirits exist in another dimension, but that there are ports in-between dimensions that are 'accidnetally' used by otherwordly spirits or ghosts or whatever you want to call them...

Another reason why I am inclined towards believing, is the fact that we, humans, cannot invent something that cannot exist, for the mere mentioning of something, makes it exist...

A washing machine, for example, was not 'invented' but was 'discovered'...

Just like Columbus did not invent America, but discovered it... It was not because no-one yet discovered the American continent, that it did not exist...


JJ

[TomOfSweden]

People are not religious by nature, but only become thus through outside influences... Religion has nothing to do with the possibility of the existence of ghosts... In fact, speaking in simple terms, God himself is an apparition (a burning bush, anyone?) and could be called a ghost...

I am inclined to believe that ghosts or spirits exist in another dimension, but that there are ports in-between dimensions that are 'accidnetally' used by otherwordly spirits or ghosts or whatever you want to call them...

Another reason why I am inclined towards believing, is the fact that we, humans, cannot invent something that cannot exist, for the mere mentioning of something, makes it exist...

A washing machine, for example, was not 'invented' but was 'discovered'...

Just like Columbus did not invent America, but discovered it... It was not because no-one yet discovered the American continent, that it did not exist...

JJ

This a logical fallacy BTW:
"People are not religious by nature, but only become thus through outside influences... "

It's called Post hoc ergo propter hoc in logic. B just doesn't follow from A. There's no logical connection between them.

Logical fallacy number 2:

"Another reason why I am inclined towards believing, is the fact that we, humans, cannot invent something that cannot exist, for the mere mentioning of something, makes it exist..."

You say in the same sentance that humans can make something exist from nothing, (mentioning X -> creates X) while you at the same time deny it.

Who says that we didn't just make up religion to explain how our world works in scientific models that where understandable to the minds of early humans? There's no proof against it and you claim it as fact.

It is encouraging that you at least atempt to justify your beliefs. There's not a whole lot of that going on in this forum. Something I find more than just a little bit unsettling.

take care
-Tom

[JimmyJump]

This a logical fallacy BTW:

Logical fallacy number 2:

"Another reason why I am inclined towards believing, is the fact that we, humans, cannot invent something that cannot exist, for the mere mentioning of something, makes it exist..."

You say in the same sentance that humans can make something exist from nothing, (mentioning X -> creates X) while you at the same time deny it.
-Tom

I'm sorry I did not express myself quite clearly: I am starting from the vantage point that there is a "place" where all that can exist already exists, and that we, Humans, can only draw from that "reservoir" to "invent" stuff...

Cheerio

JJ