debate: Anyone for Ghosts?

Tniassaint (

tniassaint) wrote in

debate,
@ 2003-10-31 13:50:00

Current mood:	Upright and breathing
Current music:	Ministry

Anyone for Ghosts?
A man on the news today made the comments, "Energy is never destroyed. It can only be converted. By definition, something must remain after physical death." He is a member of the group called <a href="http://www.ghosthounds.com/> Ghost Hounds</a>. This sounds like a fun Halloween Debate topic... What do you think of the existence of ghosts and ghost hunters? Do ghosts exist? If not why do you think that? If so, what do you think they are?

(Post a new comment)

	xaoswolf 2003-10-31 10:56 am UTC (link)
	using a wysiwyg lj client? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	tniassaint 2003-10-31 11:10 am UTC (link)
	No... still relearning HTML and I think I mistyped - call me a dumbass... I prechecked the post and it seemed like it was working... I use to know this stuff... ah well... (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	xaoswolf 2003-10-31 11:16 am UTC (link)
	It's right, it was just posted as plaintext as opposed to html formatted. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	dr_ellipso 2003-10-31 11:17 am UTC (link)
	You need to close the quotes on the URL. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	tniassaint 2003-10-31 11:18 am UTC (link)
	My damn photo links didn't work either... but the addresses are correct so I am screwing up on the HTML somplace argh Thanks for pointing it out. Listen for the sound of my head beating into the wall. (Reply to this) (Parent)

rwanat
2003-10-31 11:47 am UTC (link)

"Energy is never destroyed. It can only be converted. By definition, something must remain after physical death."

Yeah. The body remains, and it continues emitting its energy through heat, and by being consumed by other creatures. All the energy of the body is relinquished. There is no "soul energy" or anything like that. Ghosts are nothing more than manifestations of superstitions created by ignorance.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	tniassaint 2003-10-31 01:12 pm UTC (link)
	Agreed So what makes them so persistent considering that this is a reasonably well educated society. One might think that we would have cast them out by now... (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	towith 2003-11-01 05:02 am UTC (link)
	"This is a reasonably well educated society" The individual is reasonably well educated. The group is a thriving mass of misinformation. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	rwanat 2003-11-03 04:27 am UTC (link)
	Took the words out of my mouth. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	yakkette 2003-11-01 02:38 am UTC (link)
	There is no "soul energy" or anything like that. Prove it. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	towith 2003-11-01 04:45 am UTC (link)
	You can't prove a negative. Its up to -whoever- to prove the positive. Until that date, its fantastic mumbling. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

feliciaw
2004-04-11 11:32 pm UTC (link)

Ah yes - the skeptics security blanket. "can't prove a negative". Why is it when a skeptic is asked to provide evidence to support THEIR side of the argument, those are the first words out of their mouth?

And it’s not necessarily true either. "the earth is flat..." No it isn't. "Prove it isn't flat." OK - I can take the naysayer to a sufficiently high enough altitude in an air/space craft and let them observe the curvature of the earth’s surface first hand. I've just proven a negative.

Yet at one point in time, the notion that the earth was anything BUT flat was... you guessed it - "fantastic mumbling" Today we laugh at the notion that once the "flat earth" concept was not even called in to question. Nor was the creationist theory of life on earth.

Few things I find annoying as scientific arrogance. Our culture has only been industrialized for a little over 100 years. We are only beginning to understand DNA, Man has been going into outer space for just over 40 years… just about every facet of science is really in its infancy, and yet some have the audacity to call the existence of ghosts’ nonsense because it doesn’t tuck neatly away in their text book definition of the universe? You’re starting to sound like my parents when I was a child “There are no such things as ghosts.” Why not? “Because there just aren’t.” Oh wow. Point well made mom and dad!

And THEN… you've got that whole messy quantum physics thing that no one can even BEGIN to explain. And no - it’s not a stretch to propose that this mysterious "spirit energy" *might* exist on the quantum level, and hence the reason we have difficulty measuring and studying it.

Scientists have eaten "humble pie" many times in history. Before you just dismiss ghosts away as "fantastic mumbling", remember this –

Science wants repeatable results under controlled conditions. Ghostly activity does not perform on command, (yet it has been documented in all written history) and herein lies the problem in studying it. Just because something is difficult or impossible to observe does not mean it does not exist.

And no – I didn’t just “imagine” that light switch turned on by itself.

Ghostly activity takes many forms. Unless you have damning evidence to contradict it, open your mind to the POSSIBILITY that they might exist. To do otherwise is even more absurd than believing in ghosts.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	towith 2004-04-12 08:54 am UTC (link)
	My point still stands. You can't prove it exists ergo I'm not going to fucking believe it. OH, I can turn into a fish, what, you want me to prove it? How dare you, don't you know it only happens on rare occasions when only gullible people are near by. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	feliciaw 2004-04-12 09:56 am UTC (link)
	A rude person like you is not worth talking to. You have no Ideah what you are talking about so I can excuse your comment as ignorant...I wont be discussing anything in this group again. I can clearly see that you are not realy interested in the subject but only interested in bashing others that are. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	towith 2004-04-12 01:24 pm UTC (link)
	Of course we're interested in bashing others, this is debate! You'll find no slack here. You either grow a pair of balls, or you best never darken this corner of the internet ever again. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

feliciaw
2004-04-12 03:21 pm UTC (link)

This is not a debate with you in it...Its pretty pathetic ..your bad language.. Sounds to me that your not a happy camper.I hope your not one of those people that pop into chat rooms just to upset people or try to bring them down to your level. As for balls I dont need any...Another stupid thing that comes out of stupid peoples mouths. One day you will realize that you dont have to be a moron to get your point accross. As for darkening a corner of the internet, well that sentence in itself is kind of dumb but I think I get your drift. You give yourself enough darkess so I doubt any of this will touch what you have boiling inside of you. When your done with your rampage with the world maybe you will turn out ok and you can actually give something to a real debate. I forgive your bad manners because I know how hard it is for a person to see the projection they are creating of themselve not that you care at the moment. Good luck anyway

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	towith 2004-04-12 03:22 pm UTC (link)
	I thought you weren't commenting here again? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	feliciaw 2004-04-12 03:43 pm UTC (link)
	Sorry its just too hard to walk away from interesting subjects such as yourself. I tried..sorry ....maybe it wont happen again... (Reply to this) (Parent)

tniassaint
2004-04-12 06:25 pm UTC (link)

I had kinda gone off this thread, but all the sudden today I notice activity . . . !

I don't think it is fair nor accurate to call that a “security blanket”. Most people that have any credibility will provide evidence towards the negative. While you can never totally disprove most things, you can (and should) be able to offer supporting arguments. Nonetheless, our less polite friend makes a valid point. I am a skeptic, but I rarely mumble the mantra as you claim I should.

Your flat Earth example is not very accurate, unless we were living in the 10th century. They would have been perfectly valid in making the “you can't prove a negative” statement as their technology just was not up to the task. Maybe in the realm of ghosts, the naysayers (as I wave my hand in identification) may be put in their place. I would, if proved incorrect, be happy to slink back into my chair and shut up. I sincerely doubt that will happen.

The largest problem is that the “science” that these groups use is twisted and very much NOT empirical. Many of their techniques show a terrible lack of understanding of the equipment and technology they use. It reminds me of people that take photos of the sky and claim to see images of God in what are most obviously reflections from lens elements. I really don't want to burst their bubble, but I also do not want to offer credibility to fraud.

Science DOES eat humble pie when it has reason to. Those on the side of Theology often find themselves completely unable to choke down even so much as a single bite of the same. When science DOES dispute a religious or pseudo-science claim, the supporters of the claim almost always throw back such garbage as, “science just isn't there yet” or “ you can't prove matters of faith”. It is a meaningless argument. I trust the facts as I see them. It may be narrow minded (only so narrow as the mind that is doing the thinking, actually), but we all have limits on what we will rely n as credible sources of information. Ghost Hunters are not credible.

Your comments about ghosts not performing on command, and being mentioned throughout history are seriously flawed. Science is full of studies on phenomena that is difficult or impossible to recreate under controlled circumstances. Yet the pseudo-scientists do not seem to mind claiming that their spirits have “properties” that allow them to record (in different medias) over and over again, even in the SAME location. Then we get back into the whole concept of not really understanding the technology, but that is a long side rant. The historical record is full of Gods and Monsters that have long been shown to be fantisy. If I were to use your argument, I would have to believe in all the Pantheon of Gods, Devils and Demons, Dragons, Faeries, and so on.

The truth is that something that gets the HUGE level of attention that ghosts and other “paranormal” issues get would have credible data to support it by this point if it truly did exist. I personally do not believe, but I would be willing to if there was some serious and accurate information out there. Having read up on the matter, I do not feel there is.

Often there are explanations, but people are not willing to accept them, even with evidence . . . or they simply don't want to accept them.

Sorry for the low-brow entertainment from the other poster – we get rabble now and then. He makes a valid point and destroys it with poor manners. Pity . . .

Cheers

(Reply to this) (Parent)

chrismu
2003-11-01 06:01 pm UTC (link)

Scientifically prove it? It would take one hell of a study to do that. Basically, you would have to measure every single joule of energy passing into and out of someone's body during their lifetime. If there's a net drop, then you've got a problem with claiming there is no "soul energy". I don't think such a study would really be possible, but if it were, I also don't think it would find any discrepancy. Assuming that the energy content of the mortal remains is taken into account.

Of course, you could always claim that the energy came from somewhere else, some unmeasurable source, but that's nothing anyone can prove.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	tr1x0r 2003-11-02 10:11 pm UTC (link)
	burden of proof is on the person stating something exists, not stating something doesnt exist. This has been beaten into the ground already. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	pinkdove80 2003-10-31 11:52 am UTC (link)
	While I don't believe in ghost I don't disbelieve in ghost either. I have no idea what happens after death, so I try to keep an open mind. I just hope that thing where your dead relatives watching over you isn't true. I will die of embarrassment if I croke to find out my great-grandma was in the room "watching over me" while I was masturbating. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	tniassaint 2003-10-31 01:10 pm UTC (link)
	Maybe she would appreciate your freedom and technique... She did it too I am sure... Frightening thought anyway... I was thinking the same thing. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	eeewwwww... pinkdove80 2003-10-31 02:11 pm UTC (link)
	I am so broken, thanks. (Reply to this) (Parent)

tniassaint
2003-10-31 11:58 am UTC (link)

Ghosts...

No... don't believe in them. They make for cool stories though.

The Ghost Hound guy makes a simple error in failing to recognize that energy takes many forms. Energy is stored in all things and the energy that moves us and gives us life is absorbed by decomposition when we die. Metaphysical life force is usually referred to as a "soul", which would get us into nasty religious arguments... but I am curious to see what people say and to maybe understand why 37% of all Americans believe in them.

(Reply to this)

hollowman
2003-10-31 04:38 pm UTC (link)

>>Energy is never destroyed. It can only be converted. By definition, something must remain after physical death.<<

I hate it when people say things like this. If your life energy turned into a spirit and drifted off after you died, guess what? A lion would not be able to get any energy from your corpse. Now, admittedly, there has never been a controlled experiment to see if lions fed exclusively on the flesh of dead humans starve to death; however there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that human flesh is just as full of energy as any other species after death.

So that energy does go someplace, ussually into hungry worms and bacteria.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	ghostlight 2003-10-31 11:39 pm UTC (link)
	`¿Why? ¿Is that sentence incorrect?` (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	hollowman 2003-11-01 05:37 pm UTC (link)
	As far as using it to support spirit beings, yes it's incorrect. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	ghostlight 2003-11-01 05:44 pm UTC (link)
	`However, the sentence itself is not wrong.` (Reply to this) (Parent)

yakkette
2003-11-01 02:42 am UTC (link)

I don't believe in ghosts but I don't disbelieve either. I think it's certainly possible, and I think it's hilarious when people try to say that "science" somehow negates the possibility of something existing that doesn't really work within what we understand as science at the moment.

I mean, think of what "science" was 500 years ago. It's pure idiocy to think that we've got it all figured out.

I don't believe in the supernatural - If there are such things as ghosties, I'm sure they exist well within the boundaries of "science", just maybe a science we don't understand yet.

Having done extensive research on this subject (ghosties fascinate me) I think that IF they do exist, it's unlikely that they're actually the concious soul or spirit of a deceased person interacting with the living. More likely, ghostly phenomeon is simply some kind of three-dimensonal "tape recording" of events or energy that previously existed.

(Reply to this)

towith
2003-11-01 04:53 am UTC (link)

Humans nature forces us to interpret our surroundings. And the easiest answers are always the most favorable (e.g. we're at the center of the universe! No wait, our sun is! No wait...) it comes as no surprise that in the corner of our eye we think we saw something move, we turn around and nothings there. Whats the simplest answer? Ghosts. Then some crack pot will say "I've seen plenty o' them!" And thus, the epidemic begins.

Did you know mediums have only been around for 150 years? The original mediums -two sisters- on their death beds, admitted it was all a fake. But the momentum of the idea had already got to the point of no return. And no-body listened.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	raistlinjones 2003-11-01 06:15 am UTC (link)
	Ghosts are nonsense, but you don't really think mediums have anything to do with ghosts, do you? Except that both have to do with dead people, perhaps. Mediums = People who can talk to the dead. Ghosts = Dead people floating around. The idea of ghosts has been around way more than 150 years. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	towith 2003-11-01 06:22 pm UTC (link)
	They both fit the "easy answers" paradigm. I claimed no connection other than that. (Reply to this) (Parent)

www.ghosthounds.com

feliciaw
2004-04-12 03:40 pm UTC (link)

I suppose if you have never experienced paranormal activity then you would have a hard time believing. Even then some people choose to ignore it. If your actually interested in understanding the paranormal you are welcome to visit www.ghosthounds.com Ghosthound members are friends so please no bad language or hostile arguing is permitted and please be kind to one another. If you want to continue the debate there ,there is a few threads started on this same subject along with some other comments from these postings. You can laugh and say its rediculous or you might get some questions answered.

(Reply to this)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs