Why are people afraid of ghosts?
- Thread starter Thespeckledkiwi
- Start date
I don't disagree with you but let's take a closer look at your logic.
First you state that you're not surprised that so many people believe in ghosts. Fine, I'm totally with you, people believe in stuff without evidence all of the time.
Next, you state you find it unbelievable that one 1 in 5 claim to have seen yet they produce no evidence. This scenario is unbelievable only if ghosts don't exist. Hence, all you're saying really is that you don't believe that ghosts exist. I agree. But, the scenario of people claiming to have seen one despite a lack of evidence is not really unbelievable itself. There's even an explanation.
As someone who's seen and briefly looked into photographic "evidence" of ghosts, these people think they do have evidence. But, they'll say that the reflection of a spec of dust is an orb, a ghost or paranormal energy. Or they take pictures of their own shadows by accident and think it's an entity. Sometimes it's an odd reflection off a surface which they didn't notice at the time. So, the definition of "seeing a ghost" is very broad among those who checked yes to that item. It's just that you and I, and the more critical thinkers don't consider it evidence.
Mr Awe
Yes and I believe they are both fake.
It's amazing that there are "ghost hunters" out there and are actually making a nice living off of people's fantasies. These hunters come up with "proof" all the time with thier bullshit equipment. If Houdini can't come back....then nobody can!
Nardpuncher
Rear Admiral
Funny thing I heard a comedian say once was why do ghosts have clothes? Did their clothes die too?
True, though it does bring a whole new meaning to 'I wouldn't be seen dead in that'
Absolutely, that is why I included my qualifiers about the evidence standing up to scientific/expert scrutiny, I didn't actually say "no evidence" wthout qualifying it. I've seen plenty of photos of specks of dust myself, but scientists and photographic experts tend to agree that they are specks of dust
From a material point of view, they are. Isn't one of the Holy Trinity called that very thing?
Well, but...
If they think they've seen one, they have evidence, right? The evidence of their own eyes. That's not necessarily conclusive, and it wouldn't convince other people (me, for example), but it is evidence. If I'd seen one with my own eyes, I might start to believe, too, depending on the circumstances. When it comes to stuff happening here in the world as we know it, I have an inborn preference for rational explanations, but if there is no rational explanation, well...
Last edited:
I didn't actually say "no evidence" wthout qualifying it. I've seen plenty of photos of specks of dust myself, but scientists and photographic experts tend to agree that they are specks of dust
Sorry, I missed that! Sadly, the scenario is consistent in it's own weird way. 1 in 5 think they've seen ghosts and probably a decent proportion think they have evidence too!
Mr Awe
Oh, Cakes...
Personally, I happen to be kind of fond of the Holy Spirit, but I don't expect to see it walking in graveyards any time soon.
It's really a matter of perception versus simple sensation.
Sensations just are what they are. Perceptions, by contrast, are combinations of sensation and judgment.
If you see something weird, I think the common-sense response would be to suspend judgment, and check to see if anyone else saw it too. Intersubjectivity is the foundation of all human knowledge.
If nobody else saw it too, well, you're stuck with your own opinion on the matter. But there's nothing stopping you from continuing to suspend judgment.
I'd agree with that. The most likely way I'd believe in ghosts would be to personally experience something. If there was undisputed scienfitic evidence, I'd take that as well but that doesn't seem like it's going to happen! Those shows on TV are worthless when it comes to "evidence".
I actually did go ghost hunting once. As a skeptic, I wanted to give it a fair shake. Went to a location that was both a paranormal "sure thing" and at peak time. I didn't experience squat. Instead it gave me good insight into how people can confuse themselves. So, I came out even more of a skeptic than when I went in!
And, I actually would've preferred finding something paranormal. It would've been the more interesting outcome than just an empty old building. It would've forced to me to re-evaluate, well, everything really. Which I'm totally into. So, I was actually dissappointed when we got nothing at all. But, can't say that I was too surprised.
Mr Awe
Oh, Cakes...
Personally, I happen to be kind of fond of the Holy Spirit, but I don't expect to see it walking in graveyards any time soon.
LOL aren't I terrible! And this is coming from a woman who's first school was actually named "Holy Spirit". If only the sisters could see me now...they'd be so proud!
Oh, I agree, Mr. Awe and Camelopard. Despite my preference for rational explanations (or perhaps a more accurate way to state this would be "my dislike for wacko explanations when a reasonable one is available"), I'd kind of like it if ghosts were real. I'm not sure why, really - whether because it fits in with my view of the immortality of the human spirit, or because I like the idea of a world in which not everything is rational and material, or just because it would be, you know, kind of cool. 
Plus I had one pretty creepy experience myself - one for which there are rational explanations, just not very satisfying or convincing ones - and it would be nice to know that I had a reason to feel as creeped out as I admit that I did.
But I do like the idea of real ghosts...
Unfortunately, despite the coolness and dispite that one creepy experience, I don't think there are such things. I have to think that if ghosts really did exist, somebody over the centuries would have managed to acquire some sort of proof by now besides anecdotal evidence, pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo, and really shoddy-looking photos and video that could only convince somebody who really wants to be convinced.
Plus I had one pretty creepy experience myself - one for which there are rational explanations, just not very satisfying or convincing ones - and it would be nice to know that I had a reason to feel as creeped out as I admit that I did.
But I do like the idea of real ghosts...
Unfortunately, despite the coolness and dispite that one creepy experience, I don't think there are such things. I have to think that if ghosts really did exist, somebody over the centuries would have managed to acquire some sort of proof by now besides anecdotal evidence, pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo, and really shoddy-looking photos and video that could only convince somebody who really wants to be convinced.
Last edited:
Oh, I agree, Mr. Awe and Camelopard. Despite my preference for rational explanations (or perhaps a more accurate way to state this would be "my dislike for wacko explanations when a reasonable one is available"), I'd kind of like it if ghosts were real. I'm not sure why, really - whether because it fits in with my view of the immortality of the human spirit, or because I like the idea of a world in which not everything is rational and material, or just because it would be, you know, kind of cool.
I dislike whacko explanations too. But, shoot, the world would be a more interesting place if, as you say, not everything was rational, material based. The universe should throw us a cool surprise or two!
Mind sharing? I'd really like to hear. I've never had anything creepy (in the paranormal sense) happen.
I agree with this totally.
Mr Awe
Similar threads
