It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Diet.
Why don't you go to Hiroshima or Chernobyl and ask the people who had their skin burned off, got cancer or gave birth to deformed and mutated babies if they think atoms exist.
If you've never been to Auschwitz or Treblinka does that mean the holocaust is just a massive hoax?
Do you think you've won the argument because none of us here can offer any evidence of atoms from personal anecdote?
If we want we can go and take university courses in atomic science or read the research of Rutherford or Bohr. Can you point me to where I can study the wealth of similar extensive evidence, painstakingly researched and proven by scientific method, for the existence of ghosts?
And by that I don't mean morons saying 'I heard a noise and felt cold. How dare you doubt my senses as empirical proof that spirits of the dead exist.'
The existence of atoms has for the longest time been evidenced by the entire "particle theory" that supports almost all of physics and chemistry. If atoms weren't real, our understanding of chemistry would be completely wrong, but then so would be almost every prediction we ever made in chemistry, which would be particularly strange because most if not all of those predictions have turned out correct in experiments and because many of them have actually lead to pharmaceuticals that manage to work miracles for us in times of sickness. For over 200 years, physicists have been building on the notion of atoms, exponentially expanding our view on the cosmos and creating tons of applications. One might go so far as to say that car engines and refrigerators would never have been successfully built were it not for atomic theory allowing for a proper theory of thermodynamics.
However, since the second have of the 20th century, we have mastered the skill to see larger molecules through microscopes, to in fact observe molecules and atoms (!) under electron microscopes and to observe the atom's minuscule constituents, the "fundamental particles" known as electrons and quarks for example, with the aid of particle accelerators.
We know atoms are real. We have for decades been manipulating them to give us types of matter previously unknown to nature. To deny their existence is to brand oneself as an ignoramus, a terrifyingly outdated person or a clumsy and dangerous denier of the reality of science, often from a ridiculous desire to get "in touch" with the supernatural.
'Sorry mate I'm not having that. Have you ever seen an atom with your eye? No? Must be bullshit then. I, on the other hand, once saw a curtain move with no explanation so put that in your pipe and smoke it. QED I have proven atoms don't exist and ghosts do.'
...says the forum psychopath.
You clearly don t understand sarcasm when it isn t you who handle it out. I have my own idea of who it is who have mental issues here.
Those pesky ghosts, sabotaging the perfect cuppa.
I apologise profusely; if that was sarcasm it passed me by. You've got the whole believer schtick absolutely nailed. You should go undercover to infiltrate them.
Is being labelled 'the forum psychopath' an insult or a compliment? I'll take it as the latter thanks. The Norman Bates of the forum stabbing idiocy in the shower.
Ectoplasm, of course!
Oh, someone's been reading their John Dickson Carr. Good.
You really should be on Mock The Week.
Or watching Die Hard 2.
It would be nice if someone could offer anything wouldn't it? We're only 14 pages into this thread after all.
Why make the walls run red with blood or send the corpse of a dearly departed back to terrorize you when you can perpetrate the greatest of horrors known to man: switching the kettle off?
Demons have no imagination these days, I tell ya.
Shamefully I have not seen Die Hard 2, Wiz. I think that John Dickson Carr was the originator of this idea.
also
I'd like to see proof that they don't.
It's basic claims and defence.
No one has said anything from either side which would remotely satisfy the other in respect to the matter.
I remain open minded and while I am sure that 99.9% of supposed encounters have a perfectly rational (and earthly) explanation that still leaves the tiny fraction which cannot be explained away so easily.
Let's pretend its Christmas day, get out of our trenches, a have a kick about and discuss it.
These concepts are not disprovable and that is something that makes them appealing to many beleivers.
To treat the argument on equal terms is to give believers 50% of the debate when they have done nothing to deserve that place. Does anyone want to have a 50/50 debate re the invisible Dragon in my garage?
So you personally cannot prove that ghosts do not exist? That makes your own 'evidence' that they don't as compelling as those who are being hounded down and mocked for what they have experienced. With all due respect what you are actually providing is just your opinion in the same way as those who believe in their own experiences.
Lastly - and referring you to the thread title - may I ask why those who believe in ghost should not have an equal debating platform here? Up to now they have provided just as much 'evidence' as the NO camp.
No I cant and nobody else can either. Anyone can invent a theory that cannot be disproved and then challenge others to disprove it and then criticise third parties for not wanting to have a debate (just diatribe),
opinion is based on fact. There is zero evidence that ghosts exists , therefore, I cant justify beleiving in them until new evidence comes to light. Everyone uses this theory everyday unless its something that they want to believe in and then the rules get bent.
Shall we have a debate about the fairies at the bottom of your garden? or that your next door neighbour is the re-incarnation of Elvis? Are you not interested in a debate? or just a diatribe.
This basis of justification from believers is as old as the hills and dealt with decades ago by Bertrand Russell and his cosmic teapot:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
Does anyone want to debate the existance of the teapot?
It speaks volumes that this well known and established principle is deleberately ignored by those determined to either believe or add weight to their belief by entering into a 50/50 debate and keeping an open mind.
My own opinion (because I have no proof to back it up) is that much supposed paranormal activity is most likely the result of deep rooted superstition which is so heavily embedded into the human subconscious as to be little more than reflex. That said otherwise innocuous activity which is open to (mis)interpretation by those who witness it doesn't mean they are what they have been variously described within these pages.
Just back to your opening sentence (quote) "No I can't and nobody else can either". You can't prove it, the believers can't prove it. Let's throw stones at each other.
Obviously, you can be as openminded as you want about any of these theories. What it does show, and you are obvioulsy not unique in this, is that humans have the ability to change, bend and ignore rules if it suites then regarding a particualr theory and the way they consider their own World around them. I am not sure of you read the link in my post but here is a fragment which perhaps makes the point better than myself:
"Some people speak as if we were not justified in rejecting a theological doctrine unless we can prove it false. But the burden of proof does not lie upon the rejecter.... If you were told that in a certain planet revolving around Sirius there is a race of donkeys who speak the English language and spend their time in discussing eugenics, you could not disprove the statement, but would it, on that account, have any claim to be believed? Some minds would be prepared to accept it, if it were reiterated often enough, through the potent force of suggestion.[4]"
Shall we be open minded and have a debate about the donkeys?
PS I wonder if you were accused of speeding, how open minded and willing to apply the "50/50" debate principle rather than enjoy the principle of burden of proof and the onus on the state to prove the case using reliable evidence? After all, how could you prove you were not speeding?
Apply the same principle to the regaular claims we get from various religious groups that the World will end on a particular date? Do we give that a 50/50 debate? Do you seriously consider the chances it could be true? Do we start living our lives as if we could have a week to live? I suspect not.
The "burden of proof" principle is built into our culture and we have a concensus re its value until we get to spooks, tea leaves, fairies etc and then it does not seem to matter.
That anyone who has the temerity to question the pack mentality which has sadly prevailed here themselves becomes an enemy is as obvious as it is disturbing.
The principles of law as you to which you pertain in your 'PS' has absolutely no relevance to this matter as it again drifts so far away from the actual initial question raised as to be completely irrelevant. Let's be clear I am speaking about whether or not ghosts exist.
Unfortunately that you feel that you are not obliged in anyway to justify your own points of view on the matter of whether ghosts exist or not by providing proof - and yes the onus is on you just as it is those whose experiences or theories you reject - means that your point of view has no more credence than those whom you wish to undermine.
Just for clarities sake I am not saying that you are wrong or the believers are wrong or you are right or the believers are right. I want you (the rejectors) and them to give me and other people who are neither one way or the other on the subject some evidence with which to back up your theories.
Obvioulsy disagree but, on that basis, I welcome evidence from any forum members that I dont have an invisible dragon in my garage and, until such evidence is received, then we must regard it as a possibility.
Your position is, frankly, ludicrous.
I take it you consider that all criminals should therefore be set free because clearly balance of probability and beyond reasonable doubt hold zero credibility in your world view?
Even if 50 witnesses saw a bloke hack someone to death with an axe that would be insufficient evidence as given we cannot disprove he wasn't possessed with the spirit of the devil or Hitler or Vlad the Impaler or whoever then we have to acquit don't we?
But if it's disproving ghosts you're after I would point to the fact that no believer can come up with a scintilla of evidence beyond the anecdotal. I would assume that something humankind has been looking into for so many centuries might have gone slightly beyond 'I heard a noise when I was alone in the house once. And my gran died in that house. Ergo ghosts exist' if it had any basis in fact.
Whereas something like atoms were barely a hypothesis 200 years ago. Yet by 1945 we had proven their existence, split them and used the power to destroy cities.
The notion of ghosts has been around for thousands of years yet we still haven't managed to evolve beyond camp fire tales.