Why? (THIS IS FOR SKEPTICS)

[sam12six]

I don’t think believers go out of their way to sway skeptics into believe in what they do… it’s mostly the other way round from what I can gather

I wasn't saying believers all try to convert skeptics. I was saying there are too many believers who act like you slapped their mother if you tell them whatever proof they are claiming doesn't fit your personal criteria for proof of a given phenomenon.

Well, that's pretty much what I was saying. I am a self-professed sceptic. I am not a hard-nosed one, because I do believe there is something else out there.

I do not agree with your statement: If there's no scientific evidence, I assume it doesn't exist. A true sceptic would hopefully look at this and say, there is no scientific evidence. Period. A sceptic shouldn't assume. Which was my whole point to Undead. When you assume, you have already made up your mind about something. That would mean your mind is closed. No?

So what you're saying is it's ok to say, "There's no proof.", but it's not ok to say, "There's no proof, so I don't believe it."?

If I say there's a dragon who cleans my house at night because sometimes trash that I thought was on the floor when I went to bed is in the trash in the morning, and you say you don't believe that, who's making assumptions? Would it be closed-minded of you to believe that I'm either mistaken about whether that pizza box was on the floor when I went to bed or that maybe somebody else threw it in the trash? Would it be closed-minded of you to say you won't believe it's a dragon cleaning my house until you see some evidence of this dragon?

What about when I tell you sometimes my couch is shifted a little from where it normally sits and that this is clear proof that a dragon bumped into it?

I agree there are too many people who label themselves skeptics that lay down proclaimations like they're the final authority on any given subject. There are also too many people who label themselves believers who play the "I know something you don't know" game.

The only time I ever see real skeptics get mad and insulting are when the conversation goes like this:

Believer: The Pacific Northwest is perfect for Sasquatch to hide in because it's totally unexplored.

Skeptic: The PNW is not unexplored, here's a link to a map of the area showing the logging roads that crisscross the entire region.

Believer: My uncle knows a guy whose wife has a friend that's a trophy hunter, and he's told me no dead animals are ever found in the woods. That's why there haven't been any dead Sasquatches found.

Skeptic: Here's pictures of dead animals in the woods. There's a patch of woods behind my house that I've found 4 dead deer in.

Believer: That doesn't change the fact that the PNW is totally unexplored, so it's perfect for Sasquatch to hide in.

Disclaimer - any similarity to ridiculous arguments taking place in other areas of this forum could be purely coincidental.

Bottom line, when you make a leap of logic - like saying orbs are obviously ghostly energy being captured by cameras, people aren't being mean when they ask where the proof of this assertion is.

As far as "assuming something doesn't exist" goes, maybe you have a problem with the word 'assume'. The fact is we all assume something doesn't exist unless and until we've been shown evidence that crosses our personal belief threshold.

[stevemc2]

Ok. I personally am a believer in the paranormal, but i would like to here from some skeptics on the matter of ghosts, Why don't you believe in them? How can you explain alll the things that have happened? Do you really think 100% that there's nothing else out there? I just want to see how skeptics think. Thank You.

I'm a skeptic because I've never experienced any ghostly phenomena, but I'm open minded. I'm considering paying a reward to someone who can show me a haunted place where I actually see/or hear a paranormal event.

[Pluto-x]

I treaded to put my opinion here, but here it goes.

I'm a true believer because I have had experiences I cannot explain. I think a skeptic will become a believer if given the facts correctly and if they also encounter their own experience. Basically, they will believe it until they see it or experience it for themselves. I'm a partial skeptic. However, look at things like this;

We do not have the answers and scientists as well as Paranormal Investigators are not experts in the field. They have just reached the tip of the ice berg. Look, history is always being re-written due to new discoveries we make each day. How do we have the right to call them ghosts or call it anything? We just don't know what it is. We will never know what is out there until we die. Plain and simple. We can keep investigating and discovering new things, but the truth is out there in the after life. Most or majority of the people believe because that is what we were brought up on or raised to believe. I believe in God but how do we know the people who wrote the bible are right? How do we know these scientists are right? Everything, no matter what it is... is all trial and error. Nobody is perfect. Why do we have to change our beliefs about ghosts if a skeptic doesn't believe in them or presents a realistic or alternative explanation? Why do we have to believe in a ghost just because we see one? How do we know even to call it a ghost? We do not know what it is!? You just wont know until you cross over. If they are true, I think the closest thing to the answer are people with NDE's.

It sounds crazy, but has anyone seen the movie Flatliners? It had Keifer Sutherland, Kevin Bacon, Alec Baldwin and Julia Roberts in it. I think that might be one way to discover what is out here. But who would risk their life to do such a crazy thing? Even though its just a movie, its a pretty interesting theory to cross over.

[annmariet]

I do beleve dragons did exist at one time, the komo dragon is living proof of that, and there has been skeletial remains of creatures that very much resemble the myth of the dragon, but to actually see a living fire breathing dragon walking around today, well I'd say maybe in a dream, or in meditation. However, they're are interesting creatures to say the least...

Did you mean Komodo Dragon?? That is a monitor lizard, not a dragon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komodo_dragon

"The Komodo dragon (Varanus komodoensis) is a species of lizard that inhabits the islands of Komodo, Rinca, Flores, Gili Motang, and Gili Dasami, in central Indonesia.[2] A member of the monitor lizard family (Varanidae), it is the largest living species of lizard, growing to an average length of 2–3 meters (approximately 6.5–10 ft) and weighing around 70 kilograms (154 lb).

The evolutionary development of the Komodo dragon starts with the Varanus genus, which originated in Asia about 40 million years ago and migrated to Australia. Around 15 million years ago, a collision between Australia and Southeast Asia allowed the Varanids to move into what is now the Indonesian archipelago. The Komodo dragon is believed to have differentiated from its Australian ancestors 4 million years ago, extending their range to as far east as the island of Timor. The Ice Age and its dramatic sea level changes brought the islands that the Komodo dragons inhabited into their present locations, isolating them in their present range.[7]"

I am not saying you are wrong to believe, I just don't think this is a valid basis for said belief since it really has nothing to do with the mythical/cryptid dragon. Am I being a skeptic here? or are you being too open-minded?? Could be, but we all have our own ways to form our beliefs .

I consider myself a skeptic, but that does not mean I am not open to ideas or theories, I just want proof before I believe in something. I don't ever want to be close-minded, something some skeptics seem to be, but I feel for me that there has to be a limit to belief without proof or evidence.

[crtDzyn]

I treaded to put my opinion here, but here it goes.

I'm a true believer because I have had experiences I cannot explain. I think a skeptic will become a believer if given the facts correctly and if they also encounter their own experience. Basically, they will believe it until they see it or experience it for themselves. I'm a partial skeptic. However, look at things like this;

We do not have the answers and scientists as well as Paranormal Investigators are not experts in the field. They have just reached the tip of the ice berg. Look, history is always being re-written due to new discoveries we make each day. How do we have the right to call them ghosts or call it anything? We just don't know what it is. We will never know what is out there until we die. Plain and simple. We can keep investigating and discovering new things, but the truth is out there in the after life. Most or majority of the people believe because that is what we were brought up on or raised to believe. I believe in God but how do we know the people who wrote the bible are right? How do we know these scientists are right? Everything, no matter what it is... is all trial and error. Nobody is perfect. Why do we have to change our beliefs about ghosts if a skeptic doesn't believe in them or presents a realistic or alternative explanation? Why do we have to believe in a ghost just because we see one? How do we know even to call it a ghost? We do not know what it is!? You just wont know until you cross over. If they are true, I think the closest thing to the answer are people with NDE's.

It sounds crazy, but has anyone seen the movie Flatliners? It had Keifer Sutherland, Kevin Bacon, Alec Baldwin and Julia Roberts in it. I think that might be one way to discover what is out here. But who would risk their life to do such a crazy thing? Even though its just a movie, its a pretty interesting theory to cross over.

You are taking the idea that there's any sort of continued existance after death as a given. However, there is no evidence for this as well. Speculations on top of speculations. It's very interesting to contemplate, but we certainly don't know one way or another.

I can accept that. My personal suspiscion is that death will be absolute. I hope I'm not correct in this assertion, but there is only subjective evidence indicting anything to the contrary.

[Ignus Fatuus]

I am far from being a skeptic, however I do not see any evidence that says that these entities are ghosts or spirits etc... There is one thing you should keep in mind. Skeptics are those who more than likely have not seen or heard enough evidence to convince them that something illogical is afoot. I do not have problems with them, I just see why they may not see, because they havent seen ...

[NoahJaymes]

If they are true, I think the closest thing to the answer are people with NDE's.

Even then you have to take it with a grain of salt, a lot of chemical imbalance going on with NDE.

Edited April 17, 2008 by CryWolf

[NoahJaymes]

I am far from being a skeptic, however I do not see any evidence that says that these entities are ghosts or spirits etc... There is one thing you should keep in mind. Skeptics are those who more than likely have not seen or heard enough evidence to convince them that something illogical is afoot. I do not have problems with them, I just see why they may not see, because they havent seen ...

Awesome post, and that is exactly how I see it......about skeptics I mean.