Are spirits, creepy encounters, ghosts, seances, ouija boards etc proof of afterlife

kowloon · 30-11-2015 6:55am

I bought some smoked cheese earlier in the week, can't find it now, and I'm positive I didn't eat it. That leaves two possibilities: either a ghost ate it or god made it disappear. Your move sceptics.

Bongalongherb · 30-11-2015 7:41am

topmanamillion wrote: »

One question, why do people only experience these outer body experiences when they are either asleep/on top of a high mountain/fasting etc?
Is it what you say or could it be these states are necessary to experience such hallucinations.
If I told you I was wide awake, well rested, had just eaten and was at a reasonable altitude and I had an outer body experience without losing consciousness. Would I be less or more believable?

It's just an unknown at the moment because I tried to understand it many times in the past, but it's so vivid and real as in 100% waking life but clearer some-how, it's hard to explain it. Amazing though.

The weird interesting part of this experience is that when you are 'asleep' and you then feel the suction of being removed from your physical body to an awakening state is the strange part.

You go to bed and sleep, simple, but then you experience awakeness as you are being pulled out is the feeling and then when pulled out it feels like you are fully awake in real-time reality and you experience it this way as a fully awake scenario and not any kind of a dream.

I have no idea how to explain it but I myself had this so-called out of body experience many times in the past but the only way I can describe it is that it all feels like I am fully awake and I can see everything going on below on the street from around 150 feet or slightly above.

It's one hell of a visual that's for sure and basically you are fully awake but not in your physical body. I've no answers to it, but it is one hell of an experience to have. You know very clearly immediately that you are floating above a space whether it is in your room or high above your house, you are saying to yourself that this is crazy but you can see everything as natural as day. Whatever it is is very interesting to say the least.

Oh, there is one more thing about this. When you are out of the body in this feeling of reality... you sure as hell feel a jolt when you are sucked back into your physical body and it's like a person banged you hard on the chest and then you are wide awake wondering wtf just happened. The jolt being sucked back in is very strong and can give a person quite a shock.

Also lucid dreams are strange and amazing.

I still have lucid dreams and control them to an extent but sometimes they themselves are difficult to control as to stay in the lucid dream. Basically you are fast asleep but you awaken in your dream of complete lucidity, I mean fully awake in the dream and you will be saying to yourself that this is too real even though you know you are asleep and dreaming.

I once walked up a small cliff and there was a road there with 2 cars parked on the side of the road and a few people walking along and I immediatelly felt the heat of the sun on my face and put my hand over my forehead for a few seconds. Then I said to myself ok, I know I'm dreaming but this is just too real so I picked up some dust and small stones in my hand just to see how real this felt and I could feel them just like if I was fully awake and picking up the same in real waking life, and this made me think of reality.

How could I be fully awake and aware of everything but asleep at the same time, this is what I was asking myself in the lucid dream it was as real as you can imagine in real life. The human brain is an amazing thing, I just wish we had more information as to why you can be fully awake in a lucid dream and feel everything perfectly. A mystery for the time being, but I'm sure in the future we will have the correct answers. The after-life and out of body experience's are as facinating and strange as to seriously make a person think about what reality really is, even though we think we know what it is.

ScumLord · 30-11-2015 7:46am

Are jedis and sith lords proof of the force?

Bongalongherb · 30-11-2015 7:55am

Good night, but regarding the after-life... I do believe the electrical energy after death holds and contains all your memory information somehow, that's the impression I get about it. I have a strong feeling that this is the case. You have to experience it to judge it.

Figbiscuithead · 30-11-2015 8:51am

I think I had a look in that thread once and never again. That kind of stuff irritates me. No, I don't think those people are liars and they're absolutely entitled to believe it and I won't ridicule them for believing it but I will say I absolutely and categorically don't believe they are examples of paranormal activity - I don't believe anything of that kind exists.

I think psychics, on the other hand, should be prosecuted for scamming people out of money as what they do could be potentially very damaging to many people in vulnerable situations. I know someone who's extremely worried about going blind having been told he would by someone a few years ago. It doesn't help that he's a hypochondriac but the supposed psychic who told him is an arsehole as far as I'm concerned.

Savage Tyrant · 30-11-2015 9:01am

ScumLord wrote: »

Are jedis and sith lords proof of the force?

The books and movies are the proof... Like the bible is proof of a magic sky daddy.

30-11-2015 9:06am

Bongalongherb wrote: »

Good night, but regarding the after-life... I do believe the electrical energy after death holds and contains all your memory information somehow, that's the impression I get about it. I have a strong feeling that this is the case. You have to experience it to judge it.

Congrats on having dreams.

kneemos · 30-11-2015 9:18am

Figbiscuithead wrote: »

I think I had a look in that thread once and never again. That kind of stuff irritates me. No, I don't think those people are liars and they're absolutely entitled to believe it and I won't ridicule them for believing it but I will say I absolutely and categorically don't believe they are examples of paranormal activity - I don't believe anything of that kind exists.

I think psychics, on the other hand, should be prosecuted for scamming people out of money as what they do could be potentially very damaging to many people in vulnerable situations. I know someone who's extremely worried about going blind having been told he would by someone a few years ago. It doesn't help that he's a hypochondriac but the supposed psychic who told him is an arsehole as far as I'm concerned.

There was a palliative care nurse in the AMA Forum recently,there's a few mentions of ghosts through the thread.
Might be interesting if you get a chance to read it.

Azalea · 30-11-2015 9:56am

FortySeven wrote: »

We should respect peoples 'rights' to belief. No expectation to respect the belief itself.

I personally find it all disturbing. Belief without evidence. Faith. Etc.

Not much respect for the right to logic from the other side.

Agreed, but can it be said for definite that those do not exist, fact?

We don't know.

FortySeven · 30-11-2015 11:24am

Azalea wrote: »

Agreed, but can it be said for definite that those do not exist, fact?

We don't know.

We do. People just don't like having only this life so they have invented many different versions of another.

The argument that we don't really know is a desperate, last refuse of the believer usually. We have 2 generations before this stuff dies the death it's due. Religion and paranormal activity are in death throes thanks to education and the loss of religious control of the populous.

Any scientists gave up years ago. There is just NO evidence. Not a little, zero. In scientific terms this is debunked as an idea completely.

It's depressing. That's why people fight the rationality of it. Better to live the dream and go to God, yet these believers go to their grave scared. Why? I think it is because after a lifetime of trying to contact their God they got no response and the hope is just that.

True belief would have us queuing to get into heaven. Instead we fight till we drop. People know this stuff isn't real. They are just in denial.

The weak personalities and intellectual abilities of those who do blindly believe this stuff speak volumes more than any research ever done on the matter.

Not a popular view to label people liars, weak and stupid but that's my own belief in the matter. Harsh, but I'm yet to see evidence otherwise and we've had centuries to study it.

nozzferrahhtoo · 30-11-2015 11:26am

Gerry Rio wrote: »

What do you think? Arent ghosts proof that there's something after all this?

They sure would be if they themselves existed. Which you have not show. As for your thread of anecdotes, I am afraid they are quite useless to us.

I invite you to watch this video here and pay special attention to the "moving lampshade" story in it. Once you understand the issue with the story, you will understand the issue with the thread of anecdotes you link to.

smash · 30-11-2015 11:27am

Even reading the thread title made my IQ drop.

kneemos · 30-11-2015 11:31am

FortySeven wrote: »

We do. People just don't like having only this life so they have invented many different versions of another.

The argument that we don't really know is a desperate, last refuse of the believer usually. We have 2 generations before this stuff dies the death it's due. Religion and paranormal activity are in death throes thanks to education and the loss of religious control of the populous.

Any scientists gave up years ago. There is just NO evidence. Not a little, zero. In scientific terms this is debunked as an idea completely.

It's depressing. That's why people fight the rationality of it. Better to live the dream and go to God, yet these believers go to their grave scared. Why? I think it is because after a lifetime of trying to contact their God they got no response and the hope is just that.

True belief would have us queuing to get into heaven. Instead we fight till we drop. People know this stuff isn't real. They are just in denial.

The weak personalities and intellectual abilities of those who do blindly believe this stuff speak volumes more than any research ever done on the matter.

Not a popular view to label people liars, weak and stupid but that's my own belief in the matter. Harsh, but I'm yet to see evidence otherwise and we've had centuries to study it.

No idea if ghosts are real or not,but you can make up a rational explanation for anything.
It's not right to say there isn't any evidence,loads of people claim to have seem them.No harm to have an open mind.

c_man · 30-11-2015 11:35am

Are ghosts, spirits etc proof of afterlife?

No. I've seen a few "ghosts" over the years but after a bit of investigation they always turned out to be nothing more than alien conducted experiments on my brain.

Kev W · 30-11-2015 11:38am

kneemos wrote: »

No idea if ghosts are real or not,but you can make up a rational explanation for anything.
It's not right to say there isn't any evidence,loads of people claim to have seem them.No harm to have an open mind.

A claim is not evidence.

As they say, it's good to have an open mind but not so open that our brains fall out.

FortySeven · 30-11-2015 11:42am

kneemos wrote: »

No idea if ghosts are real or not,but you can make up a rational explanation for anything.
It's not right to say there isn't any evidence,loads of people claim to have seem them.No harm to have an open mind.

This is not credible evidence. People lie. I think everyone knows that because everyone does it. We all lie.
We also hallucinate, mistake or just imagine.

nozzferrahhtoo · 30-11-2015 11:47am

kneemos wrote: »

No idea if ghosts are real or not,but you can make up a rational explanation for anything.
It's not right to say there isn't any evidence,loads of people claim to have seem them.No harm to have an open mind.

And you can make up an irrational explanation for anything too. And alas it seems we humans prefer that to the rational one.

I think you risk misrepresenting the meaning of "open minded". Not thinking there are things like ghosts and reincarnation is not being "Close minded". Being open minded is willing to accept the evidence for something when it appears, even if you do not like the conclusion or do not want it to be true.

Close minded is the opposite. Not being willing to accept the truth of a substantiated claim.

I could not BE any more open minded on the subject of gods, ghosts and the after life. Or in things like astrology and homeopathy. I am not in any way emotionally or intellectually invested in these things not being true.

But until such evidence comes, and it has not been coming, then how open minded I am is simply irrelevant. To plagiarize the phrase that was already quoted by another user above, the only way at this time for me to think there are ghosts is to be SO open minded my brain falls out.

Alas, as the video I already linked to suggests, people seem to think "open minded" means "Agreeing with me" or "Being willing to accept anything as true for no good reason at all".

eviltimeban · 30-11-2015 11:51am

FortySeven wrote: »

We should respect peoples 'rights' to belief. No expectation to respect the belief itself.

I personally find it all disturbing. Belief without evidence. Faith. Etc.

Not much respect for the right to logic from the other side.

Yes, like faith is something we should buy into. Why? "Just because?"

I like the space-time rift theory. There's probably a quantum explanation for all that stuff. I feel a bigger breakthrough than discovering an after life / life on other planets etc will be a greater understanding of quantum physics and mechanics, space-time, wormholes, etc.

Also to that poster who could "feel" the stones and the sun - it was a dream. Realistic, but a dream. OR - a leak from a memory formed in a parallel universe.

Skoop · 30-11-2015 12:02pm

Azalea wrote: »

Agreed, but can it be said for definite that those do not exist, fact?

We don't know.

It can't be said for definite that anything doesn't exist. That doesn't mean you've to shrug your shoulders and say "I guess it's 50/50 so" whenever anyone makes any kind of claim about anything at all. It's perfectly fine for people to say "Yeah, prove it or I'm calling bollix" if I tell them I can juggle jumbo jets, or that there's a goblin that lives under my bed,or that once some bodies brain stops working and is eaten apart piece by piece by bacteria their spirit energy lives on and puts feathers on people's cars and nudges photos off walls, but never ever ever ever, not a single time, when it can be proven it happened, ever ever, in the history of Man kind, not once, ever.

Duggy747 · 30-11-2015 12:51pm

The history of the ouija board and the fact that these days it's trademarked by Hasbro (Monopoly, GI Joe, Transformers.............Parker Brothers owned ouija before them), along also with the well-documented and noted ideomotor effect that should give you a clue towards the validity of it's "paranormal" abilities.

StewartGriffin · 30-11-2015 1:37pm

FortySeven wrote: »

We have 2 generations before this stuff dies the death it's due. Religion and paranormal activity are in death throes thanks to education and the loss of religious control of the populous.

Don't agree on this. I think it's an inherent part of human nature to want to believe in a supernatural element to our world. Not exactly sure why that is, but it's certainly there. We have evolved through intellectually enlightened societies before in our history but always slipped back.

If Christianity dies there's no reason to doubt that something else will come along to take its place. I'd say it's a definite. As a species we're not really getting smarter. If the structures of society were torn down tomorrow and technological advances put back three hundred years, people would revert to behave the same way they behaved at that time.

Azalea · 30-11-2015 1:41pm

Not a believer in the standard religious notion of a higher power myself - and if it exists it ain't loving.

But it's true that we don't know what's outside of this dimension - from me that's not desperate last ditch straw clutching from a believer, as I'm not really a believer.

It's just stating a fact - we can't be entirely sure as we don't know. I don't think it seems that implausible at all.

ScumLord · 30-11-2015 2:48pm

Azalea wrote: »

But it's true that we don't know what's outside of this dimension

What's other dimensions got to do with ghosts? Are we now saying that on top of this universe being here just for us the other dimensions are there as an after party venue for dead humans.

Knasher · 30-11-2015 4:44pm

Gerry Rio wrote: »

By your previous logic they're all liars or gullible.

Or they could be neither, these may be things the absolutely experienced, and that anybody upon hearing their story might jump to the same supernatural conclusion that they did. The problem is that people simply aren't reliable at collecting evidence, hence why we invented scientific methods, to help compensate for our own imperfections.

To give an example I remember a great story about a family all living together and the whole family started reporting weird things happening, hearing sounds and voices, feeling beds shake, seeing figures, and so on, even arguably physical evidence in the house as plants started to die. Now if it was a single person seeing this, you might dismiss it easily, but this was an entire family, all reporting the same thing. Now you might dismiss this as the family lying, but lets say they were telling the truth for now, but I don't think it would be fair to call them gullible, after all the entire family is experiencing it, and especially if you are somebody who accepts the existence of the supernatural, then it is very understandable if you call this an instance of it.

Luckily a friend of theirs visits and suggests that the problem might be all caused by a broken furnace, leaking carbon monoxide into the house and slowing poisoning them causing hallucinations and delusions. And sure enough, they fix the furnace and the ghosts disappear, the family were neither liars or gullible, they were symptomatic. But you have to wonder, if the friend never visited, would the family eventually have been so traumatised by the "haunted" house, would they eventually have moved out, believing they were fleeing ghosts, and would this have been an example of "evidence" of the existence of ghosts. If you had read the previous paragraph, and not this one, would you have thought carbon monoxide poisoning, or supernatural?

kowloon · 30-11-2015 5:07pm

I've seen a ghost hunter programme where they used an EM detector to find the ghosts. Ghosts are known to hang around sockets and wiring.

seamus · 30-11-2015 5:08pm

Quite incredible that cameras are now so ubiquitous that major unforeseen events like bombings and natural disasters are captured as they happen, yet when it comes to the supernatural we're still asked to rely on the "proof" in grainy still photos from the early 1900s or shaky low-res video from the late 1900s.

More than a billion HD video cameras have been carried around 24 hours a day over the last five years and yet nobody has managed to capture even a single clear frame of something supernatural.

FortySeven · 30-11-2015 5:19pm

kowloon wrote: »

I've seen a ghost hunter programme where they used an EM detector to find the ghosts. Ghosts are known to hang around sockets and wiring.

You forgot the sarcastic tags. Surely?

Knasher · 30-11-2015 5:24pm

Gerry Rio wrote: »

There are over 3 thousand posts in that "Creepy" thread.

3 thousand!

So lets say half those posts are replies and not stories, that leaves 1,500 claims of encounters.

So there are 1500 things we can't explain. Lets split them into two groups, unexplained things with natural causes but without enough data to know what this actual natural cause is, and unexplained things with supernatural causes. Now I'm going to assume that you wouldn't claim that 100% of these are of the supernatural variety, so the question is where do you draw that line, or how do you draw that line, these two categories are fundamentally indistinguishable. But I think it is fair to say that your argument would be that this number must be greater than zero, that at least some of these stories must have supernatural causes.

The problem is that there is absolutely no reason for anybody to assume it is greater than zero. What you can say is that it has never happened that something went from inexplicable to explained and ended up having belonged to the supernatural category. It has simply never happened, otherwise it would be proof of the supernatural, and this entire debate would be closed. So far 100% of things that we can positively classify into one of those categories, has ended up belonging to the natural causes category. So who knows where that line actually should lie between those categories, but so far all the evidence points to 0% supernatural.

Duggy747 · 30-11-2015 5:27pm

seamus wrote: »

More than a billion HD video cameras have been carried around 24 hours a day over the last five years and yet nobody has managed to capture even a single clear frame of something supernatural.

Oh don't worry about that, people still misinterpret simple things on photos like lens flares to be proof of angels here and here

Then's there photoshop and Kirlian photography.......

kneemos · 30-11-2015 5:40pm

Knasher wrote: »

So there are 1500 things we can't explain. Lets split them into two groups, unexplained things with natural causes but without enough data to know what this actual natural cause is, and unexplained things with supernatural causes. Now I'm going to assume that you wouldn't claim that 100% of these are of the supernatural variety, so the question is where do you draw that line, or how do you draw that line, these two categories are fundamentally indistinguishable. But I think it is fair to say that your argument would be that this number must be greater than zero, that at least some of these stories must have supernatural causes.

The problem is that there is absolutely no reason for anybody to assume it is greater than zero. What you can say is that it has never happened that something went from inexplicable to explained and ended up having belonged to the supernatural category. It has simply never happened, otherwise it would be proof of the supernatural, and this entire debate would be closed. So far 100% of things that we can positively classify into one of those categories, has ended up belonging to the natural causes category. So who knows where that line actually should lie between those categories, but so far all the evidence points to 0% supernatural.

Surely something inexplicable not being explained is proof.

Knasher · 30-11-2015 6:08pm

kneemos wrote: »

Surely something inexplicable not being explained is proof.

No, of course not. There has been plenty of things in the past that were inexpiable at the time, and that were taken as proof of something supernatural. Only later somebody comes along and offers a natural explanation, followed by the evidence proving it is correct. Why would you automatically assume that the current inexplicable things would be any different?

If something doesn't have an explanation, why exactly would you assume that it must have a supernatural explanation?

kneemos · 30-11-2015 6:16pm

Knasher wrote: »

No, of course not. There has been plenty of things in the past that were inexpiable at the time, and that were taken as proof of something supernatural. Only later somebody comes along and offers a natural explanation, followed by the evidence proving it is correct. Why would you automatically assume that the current inexplicable things would be any different?

If something doesn't have an explanation, why exactly would you assume that it must have a supernatural explanation?

Nothing can ever be supernatural in that case,we just have to wait for the explanation.

Kev W · 30-11-2015 6:23pm

kneemos wrote: »

Nothing can ever be supernatural in that case,we just have to wait for the explanation.

Not so. The explanation could be something supernatural. But so far it never has been.

kneemos · 30-11-2015 6:26pm

Kev W wrote: »

Not so. The explanation could be something supernatural. But so far it never has been.

Has everything inexplicable been explained?

Kev W · 30-11-2015 6:27pm

kneemos wrote: »

Has everything inexplicable been explained?

Nothing inexplicable has been explained. Once something is explained it is no longer inexplicable.

Magico Gonzalez · 30-11-2015 6:29pm

Knasher wrote: »

So there are 1500 things we can't explain. Lets split them into two groups, unexplained things with natural causes but without enough data to know what this actual natural cause is, and unexplained things with supernatural causes. Now I'm going to assume that you wouldn't claim that 100% of these are of the supernatural variety, so the question is where do you draw that line, or how do you draw that line, these two categories are fundamentally indistinguishable. But I think it is fair to say that your argument would be that this number must be greater than zero, that at least some of these stories must have supernatural causes.

The problem is that there is absolutely no reason for anybody to assume it is greater than zero. What you can say is that it has never happened that something went from inexplicable to explained and ended up having belonged to the supernatural category. It has simply never happened, otherwise it would be proof of the supernatural, and this entire debate would be closed. So far 100% of things that we can positively classify into one of those categories, has ended up belonging to the natural causes category. So who knows where that line actually should lie between those categories, but so far all the evidence points to 0% supernatural.

The vast majority seem to be sleep paralysis related, a well documented phenomena.

ScumLord · 30-11-2015 6:31pm

kneemos wrote: »

Has everything inexplicable been explained?

No, but to date every inexplicable thing that has been explained has had a logical and scientific explanation. So far, to date nothing has been explained and proven to be supernatural. And there's no reason to believe that will ever change.

While science won't let us say for certain that there's no such thing as the supernatural, the overwhelming body of evidence clearly points in that direction. There's more than enough evidence for me to make a personal judgement, and I can confidently say it's all rubbish.

kneemos · 30-11-2015 6:31pm

Kev W wrote: »

Nothing inexplicable has been explained. Once something is explained it is no longer inexplicable.

So the inexplicable must be proof of an afterlife.

Knasher · 30-11-2015 6:33pm

kneemos wrote: »

So the inexplicable must be proof of an afterlife.

Why?

Kev W · 30-11-2015 6:33pm

kneemos wrote: »

So the inexplicable must be proof of an afterlife.

Hogwash.

You might as well claim the inexplicable is proof of wizards.

darkpagandeath · 30-11-2015 6:36pm

Why are there no Dinosaur ghosts if Spirits are real.

kneemos · 30-11-2015 6:37pm

Knasher wrote: »

Why?

Dunno . I'm going by Knasher's reasoning

Knasher · 30-11-2015 6:40pm

kneemos wrote: »

Dunno . I'm going by Knasher's reasoning

My reasoning hasn't lead me to the same conclusion. So I'm very interested in hearing how it lead you there.

kneemos · 30-11-2015 6:45pm

Knasher wrote: »

My reasoning hasn't lead me to the same conclusion. So I'm very interested in hearing how it lead you there.

Again?

mattP · 30-11-2015 6:45pm

Im kinda shocked at the "No proof so it isn't real" attitude that seems prevalent. Do ye not think thats a little narrow minded? Humans have come a long way in their existence and no doubt everyone before us thought they knew it all

Kev W · 30-11-2015 6:48pm

mattP wrote: »

Im kinda shocked at the "No proof so it isn't real" attitude that seems prevalent. Do ye not think thats a little narrow minded? Humans have come a long way in their existence and no doubt everyone before us thought they knew it all

I'm seeing a "no proof so let's not make baseless assumptions" attitude. Can you quote any of the posts you're referring to?

Knasher · 30-11-2015 6:52pm

kneemos wrote: »

Again?

Sure, why not.

ScumLord · 30-11-2015 6:53pm

kneemos wrote: »

So the inexplicable must be proof of an afterlife.

That's like saying I have a mathematical equation here. I haven't tried to solve it yet so it must be impossible.

mattP wrote: »

Im kinda shocked at the "No proof so it isn't real" attitude that seems prevalent. Do ye not think thats a little narrow minded? Humans have come a long way in their existence and no doubt everyone before us thought they knew it all

Yeah, those are the people that made up ghosts based on ignorance. Most of them thought sickness was ghosts. It was a logical assumption for them to make and it wasn't to far off the truth. The sick person has basically possessed by another creature. But now we know that sickness is caused by bacteria and viruses. If we keep debunking the supernatural with logical answers, is it not more closed minded to continue to believe in things that are consistently shown to be false?

If you ask the member of a cannibalistic south American tribe why they eat people, they'll look at you like you've two heads and say they don't eat people, the person is gone and this thing their eating is a demon. Why on earth would we assume these people are trustworthy sources of information? Why do we trust ancient tribal fears over science?

kneemos · 30-11-2015 7:00pm

Knasher wrote: »

Sure, why not.

I'll condense it.
Kev W says the explanation could be supernatural but so far it hasn't been.
So obviously if there is something unexplained it must be supernatural.

mattP · 30-11-2015 7:02pm

endacl wrote:

What you have provided, OP, is a list of things that constitute evidence of stupid.

LionelNashe wrote:

Leaving aside for the moment that there is no such thing as ghosts, and just pretending for the sake of argument that there is such a thing as ghosts.....

Savage Tyrant wrote:

Spirits, seances, ghosts and ouija boards are NOT proof of the afterlife... They do belong in the same category though... Listed under complete nonsense.

An File wrote:

Not liars. Story-tellers. Some of them very good story-tellers too.

ScumLord wrote:

Yeah, those are the people that made up ghosts based on ignorance. Most of them thought sickness was ghosts. It was a logical assumption for them to make and it wasn't to far off the truth. The sick person has basically possessed by another creature. But now we know that sickness is caused by bacteria and viruses. If we keep debunking the supernatural with logical answers, is it not more closed minded to continue to believe in things that are consistently shown to be false?

Im sorry, but just how have you proved that there is no such thing as a ghost? Or an after Life?
I was not referring to thr supernatural, I was referring to the collective knowledge of human kind throughout the ages. If you could go back and tell a caveman about airplanes, Netflix and mobile phones he wouldnt be able to conceive it, not in the slightest. That's my point. We are someone else's cavemen.

ScumLord wrote:

If you ask the member of a cannibalistic south American tribe why they eat people, they'll look at you like you've two heads and say they don't eat people, the person is gone and this thing their eating is a demon. Why on earth would we assume these people are trustworthy sources of information? Why do we trust ancient tribal fears over science?

Here's a fiver, call a cab and get back to the topic *rolls eyes*

Are spirits, creepy encounters, ghosts, seances, ouija boards etc proof of afterlife

Comments