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
+1 well said...personally i think this thread should be closed,the sceptics are so close-minded its just not worth the hassle,which is why i have hardly contributed.
That post hasn't done you any favours, it really hasn't. What if I were to come back at you - would you pull on your Mod hat and ban me?
The two reasons it has done you no favours is because it has demonstrated to all here that you have failed miserably to grasp one single thing I have written. Secondly it is evidence (ah the E word!) of your willingness not to only condone offensive posts against participants of this thread but to actively engage in such.
I guess not. They have heard of "BURN THE WITCH!" though. An interesting mob mentality among supposed academics and their general conduct in respect to their theories - 'open wide while I shove this down your throat'. I'm just glad that within the realms of science there are real innovators, people who are willing and able to think beyond the bounds of possibility in order to bring real progress.
I think some people are getting worked up because they have managed to silence others opinions by sneering and jeering, they are now attempting the same tactic upon me. I'll save said people a little time by saying that sort of thing won't work.
First of all, why would I cowardly ban you over a disagreement? You haven't done anything that goes against our forum rules. You can come back at me for sure. I'm a grown up man, I can handle it. :) I'm not going to hide behind "the badge" to win an argument.
Offensive? Surely my post isn't offensive. This thread discusses the possibility of ghosts, an utterly ridiculous notion in the 21st century, a painful remnant of the days when people relied on simple, untested and often religiously inspired models to explain certain phenomena. Then two to three scientific revolutions came, and science left superstition, magic, Creationism, ... far behind it. I'm not being offensive when I mock this sudden renaissance of one of Man's biggest mistakes from the past, am I?
The fact that people, to this very day, still accept the possibility of the supernatural, that they, indeed, are willing to go so far as to resort to the clumsy "well you haven't yet disproved the possibility, have you?" reasoning, is upsetting to say the least. We shouldn't have to disprove it. People should have gotten smart enough, sophisticated enough, to realise that after more than 10 000 years of contemplating the supernatural, nothing - literally NOTHING of substance has ever been empirically linked to the supernatural, and thus, that the supernatural isn't natural, and therefore doesn't exist. The universe equals nature plus physics plus mathematics. Everything else is stupid make-belief and in this day and age potentially harmful. Madmen used to be funny jesters, fools whose foolishness served to entertain others. Madmen today can flip a coin and press the magic button that blows the Northern hemisphere into the sky.
That some of our posters have, over the course of several pages in this thread, become very upset, livid even, is something that for once, I, as a member and not as a mod, can perfectly understand. It's tough, borderline impossible, for us to cope with the intellectual self-dilution of those who are prepared, against better judgement to accept the possibility of something looming in the shadows so to speak. As I have often said, if we wish to get humanity and Earth back on track, we need to abandon the preposterous fantasies of old.
Why would my post be doing me no favours? Am I not allowed to stand up for something? I'm not here as a mod. I'm here as a member. Only in matters of science versus superstition do I speak up. Can I, please? I'd be terrible at my job if I condoned all this "I believe there's something... " gibberish. This isn't about allowing one an opinion, sir. This is about defending rationality against the traps of magical thinking. This is, to borrow a phrase from one of Carl Sagan's books, about lighting a candle in the dark...
Just when we thought it can't get more heated than in the President's thread enter the Ghost thread and you'll be haunted by vicious debates.
That's an argument from authority: that @stag is a cop gives no special credibility to his arguments. And I hope he was more rigorous in his criminal investigations than he expects people to investigate claims of the supernatural or there's a few defense lawyers that had their work cut out.
But if that is to mean anything, it must be a consistant stance regarding all of life and all of nature. So if believers need to receive medical treatment, they must be open minded about being cured via acupunture, aroma therapy, chinese herbs, faith healing, voodoo etc
Obvioulsy, to some, I appear to be closed minded and not willing to enter debate and I get that. But I and other believers are consistant in the application of key principles and I just dont see that from believers. When the poo hits the fan in our lives or our loved ones, we all want the best that science can offer. No time for debate, no balancing the onus of proof, we just want something that works and we all know that it is science that delivers.
So claiming that a light going on and off is caused by a ghost sounds like an innocent and charming story. But the implications of abandoning key principles of science run deep.
No I don't think you are an imbecile. What I say is that if you saw something strange that so far you have been unable to explain naturally... then it's ok to say you do not know the nature of the occurrence. And to investigate further instead of jumping to conclusions.
I've already pointed out why your post has done you no favours so I'm not going to repeat myself, all you need to be aware of going forward is that I stand by what I said.
I have to ask have you actually read my previous posts? If so have you digested the content therein? If yes why have you seen fit to label me - among other things -superstitious? All I am willing to do is listen to everyones point of view but as things stand I guess you'll find an adjective somewhere to tag onto my name.
It speaks volumes for the general tone of the thread that some people don't want to contribute for fear of ridicule and it is painfully obvious that the only people here who are 'allowed' to stand up for something are the ones who conform to the mindset of the pack - not a good basis for debate on a subject which warrants serious discussion. If the subject was approached without all the hysteria by those who don't believe than they could most likely talk their way into making people realise that (most) of what they have seen/heard/ otherwise witnessed can be explained away in a perfectly earthly manner.
WRT proof if you think you shouldn't have to prove your theories (and without conclusive evidence that's all they are) you should not expect others to prove their own. Does this same mindset work in the world of science? For example I am a scientist and I have a theory so am expected to prove it, you are a scientist and you have a theory (on the same subject) but you are not expected to prove it? Am I correct in saying at the cutting edge of science most subjects are themselves theoretical? If so it can only produce theories based upon similar studies without evidence in the common usage of the word? Science can't prove everything because we have not yet reached the point in time where that is possible - where we know everything about everything - do you agree?
As a counterpoint to those who genuinely believe that there is something among us - whatever that 'thing' may be, I suggest they read my previous posts.
So at the risk of repeating myself
Those who believe have yet to produce any evidence to support their claims
Those who don't believe have yet to produce any evidence to support their claims.
The cold hard fact of the matter is none of you can and until such time as said evidence is forthcoming all theories can be treated as nothing more that personal opinion. This leads me to the following point and the crux of my issue with some posters here. Why should people be harangued or otherwise mocked for imparting their own experiences and their interpretation of those experiences? No one has to agree with anyone else but we can disagree without recourse to schoolyard bully tactics. Winning an argument by shouting others into silence is a hollow - even Pyrrhic - victory and hardly a route which needs to be travelled by supposed educated people.
I really wasn't going to engage with you further and had already deleted a post because on second thoughts it may have come across as inflammatory.
In the instance of proof within the context of this discussion all we have thus far is opinion.
As far as I'm concerned there isn't a major difference between theory and hypothesis apart from the fact that the latter bases itself upon limited evidence - seeing as that evidence is not forthcoming then we return to the theory.
I will say this - and I am only speculating - scientific research into the 'ghost' phenomenon will have been conducted and conducted correctly.
I'm with you, @DarthDimi. I can't believe in this day and age we actually have to strain ourselves to explain why this doesn't make any sense to believe in.
I just know, I feel it in my bones.
Lurking in the dark ?
No.
On the basis that we have already heard "evidence" of chairs moving, lights going on/off etc, we have to consider that ghosts can intereact with our physical World (we have no proof they cant)
So if a person is found murdered (stabbed) whilst alone in their house with no prints on the knife, we must consider that the murderer was a ghost? After all, we have no proof it was not a ghost and we "know" they can move physical objects.
The gut reaction of the vast majority is that this is not only a silly claim but one worthy of ridicule. But, if we go down the route of the believers, then it must be something that we have to consider with an open mind and look for evidence to disprove aswell as prove. After all, we have not disproved ghosts, so how do we know?
These are the types of scenario that you get into if you have a 50/50 burden of proof and ignore Occam's Razor. 99% of the population have grasped and embraced these basic principles but there still remain a minority that, for what ever reason, have abandoned reason.
Lastly, re the issue of upsetting people and causing offence, I clearly remember, when I was told that Father Christmas did not exist, I cried for a long time. My parents had pursued the fraud wonderfully, (supported by friends, school, media etc) and I wanted to beleive it was true. Were my parents wrong to tell me? If we give a higher priority to avoiding offence rather than seeking and respecting the truth, in time, we become a World who believes in Father Christmas.
I tricked my own son, though.
WHAT ?????!!!!! are you taking the piss ?....of course he exists...what do you mean ?
One of the biggest mistakes people make today is to think that all opinions are equal, that all opinions are to be respected, that all opinions exist on the same intellectual level and that therefore we, who fight every belief in the supernatural, bear the same burden of proof as those willing to believe.
Wrong. Not every opinion should be respected. In my country, the law even says so. If one displays public sympathies with Nazism, one could be dragged to court. But then Nazi sympathisers make an easy target. The wounds of WWII are still bleeding in this part of Europe, ergo very few people would dare to disagree with anyone bashing Nazism. (Righteously so, by the way.) However, the law strictly forbids that I would publicly bash Islam, for then I would be instigating violence against a certain group of people. Ergo, I don't bash Islam, publicly or otherwise. I do, however, bash, mock, ridicule and in fact condemn many of Islam's teachings, for they are inhumane, stuck in the Stone Age, offensive to women and people outside Islam, potentially hazardous to those groups of people, ... I don't have to respect the "opinion" that I am to be decapitated because I don't believe in allah, or the "opinion" that my girlfriend is a whore because she doesn't wrap her lovely face in ugly rags. I don't have to respect the "opinion" that the Earth is flat, as some profoundly religious members of the human race still claim. I don't have to respect the "opinion" that we were born from Adam and Eve some six thousand years ago.
And neither do I have to respect the "opinion" that the ghost of my beloved grandma might be stuck somewhere in spirit limbo, that she might be in the same room as I am right now, that she might not be truly dead in the spiritual sense. She'll forever be in my memory, but since April 10, she really is dead. And if I ever have any children, I may tell them about her, and they may tell a few things about her to their children, and so on, but one day, she'll be forgotten, like I will be. Every carbon atom in our body will have disconnected from its larger structure and bonded with other atoms, carried away by the winds as carbon dioxide or eaten by cattle as cellulose.
Frankly, I find the notion of something elusive from a dead person left behind in this world insulting. But that's not even the point. The point is that if you should come across a phenomenon you cannot immediately explain, to then resort to the possibility of something not from this world is an act of intellectual laziness. First, one must always rely on simple physics. Seen some strange lights? Well, reflections and refractions can play tricks on the mind as they have since the dawn of Man. Mirages aren't caused by sadistic gods but by layers of air with a temperature gradient. The Aurora Borealis isn't a gateway to the spirit world but a simple case of light emission caused by highly energetic cosmic particles, funnelled by Earth's magnetic field, colliding with nitrogen molecules in the atmosphere. As for funny sounds, materials expand and contract, they push and they pull, they produce sound waves which can be amplified in terms of volume and pitch, or interfere with air currents and such. And if the sounds were calling your name, here's Rorschach for you: they weren't calling your name but that's what your mind made of it.
If physics can't explain something yet, you STILL mustn't resort to supernatural assumptions. Our scientific knowledge, today, is yet incomplete. But that only means we have so much more to discover, which is one of science's ultimate indulgences. Be patient and one day we'll have the answers. In the mean time, don't worry, aliens didn't fetch your porch while you were in Church. Buford wasn't really speaking in Hebrew when you called that exorcist for help.
It's a general misconception that science has to disprove the irrational. Here's the thing: science doesn't talk about the irrational. Science cannot refute god because god cannot be defined, because god isn't rational. Therefore, science cannot assemble empirical data about god, therefore god isn't of any concern to science. Science will not even attempt to disprove the existence of god. However, science demonstrates that the universe doesn't need a god to exist, that life doesn't need a god to exist. Science renders god obsolete. God is simply an ancient model, used a long time ago to explain the universe in times when people hadn't even discovered mathematics yet. That people choose to still cling to the god model today to give them a purpose in life, is their good right. That they use the god model to denounce science, is ridiculous. That they use the god model to kill, maim and destroy, is the reason many of us want to rid the world of the god model, much like we have - by law! - tried to get rid of Nazism.
Science doesn't have to worry about ghosts either. Science can claim millions of triumphs, many of which have been put to good practice, many of which are made use of by us - on a non stop basis! Has ghost hunting ever amounted to even one single thing? Don't point me to some YouTube videos or ludicrous picture tweaking please. Oh and those lovely Ed and Lorraine warren biographies The Conjuring is based on? Funny story. If you ask the families they supposedly helped, they'll tell you the Warrens practically invaded their houses and forced their ridiculous research on them, uninvited and, more importantly, without any result. Ghosts were never spotted, never chased away, never exorcised. Now I like a good ghost movie as much as the next horror fan and I must admit that with the proper visuals and the right music, I too can get in the mood of the film and double check the back-seat of my car before I drive home. That's the power of good filmmaking right there. But having intellectually processed the film, I can easily step out of this fantasy mode and return to real life.
Many people, however, can't. Man's unlimited fantasy has produced all sorts of delusions, and it's back in vogue to seriously contemplate certain possibilities. What is it? Boredom? The impact of really convincing CGI films? The found footage genre? YouTube? Is it a perverse desire to conceive of things not of this world? Is is fear of a secular society? Many studies have already shown that the higher the intellect, the less one's inclined to fall for superstition. I suppose the good thing is, I as an educator still have a couple of interesting challenges left. Something that gives me a purpose in life, something other than to worship at the alter of some non-existent cosmic being, something other than to protect my house against a ghost invasion. My purpose in life: to help increase the intellect of people and thus to escape the clutches of insanity. As I've said before, one day people will look back on these times as having barely evolved beyond Medieval hysterias. They will mock us, for having figured out so much about the universe, with so few to actually understand or want to understand anything about it but instead, to still stubbornly rely on a caveman's idea of the universe. They will see pictures of crusaders, and pictures of jihad warriors and barely spot a difference. They will see drawings of witch burnings in the Middle-Ages, and pictures of the Westboro Baptist Church folks, and barely spot a difference. They will read about people using so-called holy water to spray over their doorstep in the year 1000 and then about ghost hunters blogging on the Internet today, and barely spot a difference. And they shall mock us, scoff at us. To them, we shall be little more than what the Neanderthal is to us. For surely, only the less-than-sophisticated, the underdeveloped person can observe something as an adult, decide he doesn't understand it, and then immediately give in to silly, childish beliefs in the supernatural. No wonder, they'll say, that it took them hundreds of years to evolve from the first incandescent light bulb to the first LED light... Because rather than shake off old, unproven models, people still clung to them, willingly for that matter, which is even worse.
(and my dragon also agrees)
Good old Henry.
This has to be the best post on this thread! @BeatlesSansEarmuffs
Yeah right....blurgh..