There was a ghost in my bedroom last night

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

Because otherwise it opens the way for every creature within the last 3.7 billion years to have a ghost.

 

 

 

How do you know that?

 

 

 

What in this thread?

 

In answer to your questions.

 

I know it is true and Dogs experiences.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Whether you believe in the supernatural or not, it is common decency is it not that when you see another human being in distress you offer to help them if you can, or at the very least show them a modicum of understanding and compassion.

 

Some of the replies on this thread at little short of a disgrace.

[Matthew Le God]

In answer to your questions.

 

I know it is true and Dogs experiences.

 

That doesn't answer either of the questions or respond to the first statement.

Edited 5 September, 2011 by Matthew Le God

[Matthew Le God]

Whether you believe in the supernatural or not, it is common decency is it not that when you see another human being in distress you offer to help them if you can, or at the very least show them a modicum of understanding and compassion.

 

Some of the replies on this thread at little short of a disgrace.

 

Who is "distressed" and which posts have shown them to be as such?

 

Which replies have been "a little short of a disgrace"?

 

You probably won't like this... but sometimes it is good for people to be told what they believe in is nonsense, or at the very least ask them questions that should prompt them to consider their beliefs a little more deeply than they currently do. Especially when it comes to things that have very little or nothing in the way of reviewable evidence.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

That doesn't answer either of the questions or respond to the first statement.

 

The first statement is untrue as per the ghosts only exist until their place of 'haunting' is destroyed and for the this part I was told by a ghost. And the second part, Dog's experiences are proof that ghosts do exist.

 

But lets try this another way. Have you got unequivocal proof that ghosts do NOT exist?

[Monk]

Found loads of what can only be described as 'ectoplasm' around my misses mouth last night? Should I call ghost busters?

[Seaford Saint]

Who is "distressed" and which posts have shown them to be as such?

 

Which replies have been "a little short of a disgrace"?

 

You probably won't like this... but sometimes it is good for people to be told what they believe in is nonsense, or at the very least ask them questions that should prompt them to consider their beliefs a little more deeply than they currently do. Especially when it comes to things that have very little or nothing in the way of reviewable evidence.

 

I believe you are a boring **** even if you tell me it is nonsense I am still going think the same...what a boring ****!

[Seaford Saint]

I believe I am going to have another bowl of soup, maybe a beer later.

[Matthew Le God]

The first statement is untrue as per the ghosts only exist until their place of 'haunting' is destroyed and for the this part I was told by a ghost.

 

Tell me more about this ghost experience where you were told ghosts only exist until there place of origin is destroyed.

 

What counts as destroyed? What about a Norman Castle that is no longer used but partially ruined, is that destroyed? Can ghosts haunt them? What about the Pyramids? Stonehenge? etc etc

 

Were you the only witness to this encounter?

 

And the second part, Dog's experiences are proof that ghosts do exist.

 

That is not proof.

 

But lets try this another way. Have you got unequivocal proof that ghosts do NOT exist?

 

The burden of proof lies with the claimant not the sceptic, put eloquently by Bertrand Russell in 1952 about the existence of God, however it can be applied to ghosts, unicorns, monsters, dragons, fairies, leprechauns etc etc as-well...

 

[video=youtube;_AXBvmd-xcw]

Edited 5 September, 2011 by Matthew Le God

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

I find that very hard to believe.

 

You probably would, but it happened. The child that I spoke to made it very clear that he will only stay around the garden of my house until it is destroyed.

 

 

 

That is not proof.

 

Why is it not proof? A first hand experience of ghostly happenings, from someone who is (I presume) clinically sane. What more proof do you need? How do you explain him being hit in the head with a can?

 

 

 

The burden of proof lies with the claimant, put eloquently by Bertrand Russell in 1952 about the existence of God, however it can be applied to ghosts as-well...

 

[video=youtube;_AXBvmd-xcw]

 

Ok, you want proof, I suggest you watch a documentary film called Paranormal Activity. It's a true story set in San Diego where a couple film demonic happening in their house. Once you've seen that you won't be able to deny the existence of spirits and ghosts.

[Saint in Paradise]

MLG, look in a mirror and read this quote of yours

 

You probably won't like this... but sometimes it is good for people to be told what they believe in is nonsense.

 

.

[JackFrost]

Well I can see we've all entered into the spirit of this thread

[Matthew Le God]

You probably would, but it happened. The child that I spoke to made it very clear that he will only stay around the garden of my house until it is destroyed.

 

Are you the only witness to this? Not saying you are lying, you seem to genuinely believe it happened to you. That doesn't mean or prove that it did however.

 

Why is it not proof? A first hand experience of ghostly happenings, from someone who is (I presume) clinically sane. What more proof do you need? How do you explain him being hit in the head with a can?

 

Evidence - perhaps. But certainly not proof. It is also untestable and unrecorded.

 

Ok, you want proof, I suggest you watch a documentary film called Paranormal Activity. It's a true story set in San Diego where a couple film demonic happening in their house. Once you've seen that you won't be able to deny the existence of spirits and ghosts.

 

Are you seriously suggesting a Hollywood film is evidence of ghosts? How do you know it is a true story? Just because they tell you it is?

 

Does that mean the Oliver Stone 1990 film "JFK" is evidence of a second gunman? Please tell me you are on a wind-up?

Edited 5 September, 2011 by Matthew Le God

[Matthew Le God]

MLG, look in a mirror and read this quote of yours

 

"You probably won't like this... but sometimes it is good for people to be told what they believe in is nonsense."

 

I'm perfectly happy with that statement, especially when you don't take it out of context like you just have.

 

Imagine you are 11 years old, a good friend tells you that they still believe in Father Christmas just before their first Christmas in at secondary school. Do you not think it is for their own good to tell them it is nonsense? Of course do it gently, but for their own good and future it is better that they know it to be nonsense.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

Are you the only witness to this?

No, the ghost was there as well.

 

 

 

Evidence - perhaps. But certainly not proof. It is also untestable and unrecorded.

Are you saying though that all ghostly proof is untestable and unrecorded? What would make you believe?

 

 

 

Are you seriously suggesting a Hollywood film is evidence of ghosts?

 

It was a documentary, and a non-fiction film.

 

Frankly, I think you are showing a lack of intelligence by denying outright the existence of something you can't understand.

[scotty]

Yep. I don't doubt that people who say they have seen a ghost actually believe they did. But I think this is driven by the want to believe it's true coupled with the human minds ability to make you see/hear things which are not there. The mind is more powerful than we can comprehend.

 

I didnt want to believe it, trust me on that one if nothing else. I was shlt scared for three straight months afterwards.

 

And if you accept that the human mind is more powerful than we can comprehend, why dont you accept that the rest of the universe might be as well?

[Matthew Le God]

No, the ghost was there as well.

 

The ghost can not be a witness to seeing itself.

 

Are you saying though that all ghostly proof is untestable and unrecorded?

 

Can you show me a peer reviewed and accepted academic paper which has evidence of paranormal activity?

 

It was a documentary, and a non-fiction film.

 

So because they told you it was a documentary based on real events, you take a Hollywood movie of it to be "evidence".

 

The 9/11 conspiracy movie "Loose Change" is also labelled as a documentary, however every claim they make in it can be debunked.

 

Frankly, I think you are showing a lack of intelligence by denying outright the existence of something you can't understand.

 

Watch the Youtube celestial teapot video I posted in #164 (which you made no comment about). The burden of proof is on you, not me. So far you have failed on that count.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

The ghost can not be a witness to seeing itself.

This one could, it had 2 heads. He also told me how he died.

 

 

 

Can you show me a peer reviewed and accepted academic paper which has evidence of paranormal activity?

 

http://ezinearticles.com/?Existence-of-Ghosts---Scientific-Proof-For-the-Existence-of-Ghosts-Exposed&id=3463469

 

 

 

So because they told you it was a documentary based on real events, you take a Hollywood movie of it to be "evidence".

 

The 9/11 conspiracy movie "Loose Change" is also labelled as a documentary, however every claim they make in it can be debunked.

 

There is also the 1990 film 'Ghost'. That's got ghosts in it too.

 

 

Watch the Youtube celestial teapot video I posted in #164 (which you made no comment about). The burden of proof is on you, not me. So far you have failed on that count.

 

And I told you my proof is Paranormal Activity. Perhaps even Paranormal Activity 2. Tell me why this isn't proof. Also, why does someone saying the burden of proof is on me make it so? I don't believe they have the authority to do it. So why don't you prove to me, via a peer reviewed and accepted academic paper, that ghosts do not exist.

Edited 5 September, 2011 by Dibden Purlieu Saint

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

The ghost can not be a witness to seeing itself.

 

 

 

Can you show me a peer reviewed and accepted academic paper which has evidence of paranormal activity?

 

 

 

So because they told you it was a documentary based on real events, you take a Hollywood movie of it to be "evidence".

 

The 9/11 conspiracy movie "Loose Change" is also labelled as a documentary, however every claim they make in it can be debunked.

 

 

 

Watch the Youtube celestial teapot video I posted in #164 (which you made no comment about). The burden of proof is on you, not me. So far you have failed on that count.

 

One last thing. Go to Youtube. There are more video's of people 'seeing' ghosts, than people shown 'not seeing' ghosts.

[Matthew Le God]

This one could, it had 2 heads.

 

You are just being silly now.

 

http://ezinearticles.com/?Existence-of-Ghosts---Scientific-Proof-For-the-Existence-of-Ghosts-Exposed&id=3463469

 

That does not meet the criteria of what I asked for.

 

There is also the 1990 film 'Ghost'. That's got ghosts in it too.

 

More silliness...

 

And I told you my proof is Paranormal Activity. Perhaps even Paranormal Activity 2. Tell me why this isn't proof.

 

Again, you must on a wind up if you think fictional Hollywood films can be used as evidence.

 

Also, why does someone saying the burden of proof is on me make it so? I don't believe they have the authority to do it. So why don't you prove to me, via a peer reviewed and accepted academic paper, that ghosts do not exist.

 

Watch the Bertrand Russell Celestial teapot video.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

You are just being silly now.

 

 

 

That does not meet the criteria of what I asked for.

 

 

 

More silliness...

 

 

 

Again, you must on a wind up if you think fictional Hollywood films can be used as evidence.

 

 

 

Watch the Bertrand Russell Celestial teapot video.

 

I would suggest the person debating with me is the one being silly.

 

Just because you don't and can't comprehend something that is beyond your understanding does not mean that it does not exist. It just means you lack the intelligence to do so.

[Matthew Le God]

It was a documentary, and a non-fiction film.

 

I would suggest the person debating with me is the one being silly.

 

Nope, definitely you.

 

Just because you don't and can't comprehend something that is beyond your understanding does not mean that it does not exist. It just means you lack the intelligence to do so.

 

You can then apply that logic to anything, um... like a celestial teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars.

 

Again, the burden of proof is on you. Provide some peer reviewed academic evidence accepted by the scientific community of anything to do with ghosts?

 

(You are clearly on a wind up)

Edited 5 September, 2011 by Matthew Le God

[Dr Who?]

Many more people than that can be wrong. People can just misunderstand things, or want to see patterns and shapes that aren't there, it's basic psychology.

 

Even Pompey have more than 5 fans thinking they've done nothing wrong. So 5 people can be very, very, very wrong.

 

Ok that did not come across right. We were not out ghost hunting, and all 5 of us thought ghost, and it looked like a shadow walking across a tree trunk. It might not have been, but who the hell was it...it was glowing!!

[Matthew Le God]

Ok that did not come across right. We were not out ghost hunting, and all 5 of us thought ghost, and it looked like a shadow walking across a tree trunk. It might not have been, but who the hell was it...it was glowing!!

 

So it only "looked like a shadow". Why was your first conclusion, "it is most likely a ghost" rather than anything else? Is that really the most likely cause of a shadow?

[Rorytheking]

So it only "looked like a shadow". Why was your first conclusion, "it is most likely a ghost" rather than anything else? Is that really the most likely cause of a shadow?

 

Is your question mark key broken yet?

[saintscottofthenortham]

I'm glad I earlier forgot to add MLG to my ignore list. Coming back onto this thread has got me ****ing myself over what a right pleb this moron is.

[scott_saints]

So it only "looked like a shadow". Why was your first conclusion, "it is most likely a ghost" rather than anything else? Is that really the most likely cause of a shadow?

 

This sums up my point I made earlier. Most people (me not included) LOVE to believe the most extreme/stupid theories.

 

The fact that 5 different people thought "Ghost!" says alot about how stupid people are, imo.

[Matthew Le God]

I'm glad I earlier forgot to add MLG to my ignore list. Coming back onto this thread has got me ****ing myself over what a right pleb this moron is.

 

Why any more so than any of those claiming to have seen ghosts? Why have you decided to label only one side of the debate as moronic?

[saintscottofthenortham]

Is your question mark key broken yet?

 

He has a pile of the things. He gets through them so fast that he has production line of illegal Chinese immigrants constantly working on keeping his '?' in working order. Someone find the poor buggers a better job so MLG can work on his personality instead.

[Matthew Le God]

The fact that 5 different people thought "Ghost!" says alot about how stupid people are, imo.

 

I agree.

[Jonnyboy]

Im with MLG

[saintscottofthenortham]

Why any more so than any of those claiming to have seen ghosts?

 

You are completely missing the point. I am in no way here for the subject this thread was started on. I am here, because I am confined to the house tonight, can't do anything, so am making myself feel better by showing myself that I could have a personality such as yours. I can't help but find your constant tone towards every poor feckers inaccurate posts anything but f*****g annoying. I'm far from the only one so maybe you wanna go through your post history and find the common theme.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

This sums up my point I made earlier. Most people (me not included) LOVE to believe the most extreme/stupid theories.

 

The fact that 5 different people thought "Ghost!" says alot about how stupid people are, imo.

 

Congratulations, you agree with MLG!

 

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

Nope, definitely you.

 

 

 

You can then apply that logic to anything, um... like a celestial teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars.

 

Again, the burden of proof is on you. Provide some peer reviewed academic evidence accepted by the scientific community of anything to do with ghosts?

 

(You are clearly on a wind up)

 

Of course it's a wind up. Seems everyone but you understood this a long time ago.

 

The point is, the world is not black and white, there are hue's of grey as well.

 

Here's some quotes for you:

 

Ross: You don't believe in evolution?

Phoebe: I don't know, it's just, you know...monkeys, Darwin, you know, it's a, it's a nice story, I just think it's a little too easy.

Ross: Too easy? Too.... The process of every living thing on this planet evolving over millions of years from single-celled organisms is... is too easy?

Phoebe: Yeah, I just don't buy it.

Ross: Uh, excuse me. Evolution is not for you to buy, Phoebe. Evolution is scientific fact, like, like, like the air we breathe, like gravity.

Phoebe: Oh, okay, don't get me started on gravity.

Ross: You uh, you don't believe in gravity?

Phoebe: Well, it's not so much that you know, like I don't believe in it, you know, it's just...I don't know, lately I get the feeling that I'm not so much being pulled down as I am being pushed.

 

Ross: Ok, Pheebs. See how I'm making these little toys move? Opposable thumbs. Without evolution, how do you explain opposable thumbs?

Phoebe: Maybe the overlords needed them to steer their spacecrafts.

Phoebe: What is this obsessive need you have to make everyone agree with you? No, what's that all about? You know what I think? I think maybe it's time you put Ross under the microscope.

 

Phoebe: Ok, Ross, could you just open your mind like this much, ok? Wasn't there a time when the brightest minds in the world believed that the world was flat? And, up until like what, 50 years ago, you all thought the atom was the smallest thing, until you split it open, and this like, whole mess of crap came out. Now, are you telling me that you are so unbelievably arrogant that you can't admit that there's a teeny tiny possibility that you could be wrong about this?

Ross: There might be, a teeny, tiny, possibility.

Phoebe: I can't believe you caved.

Ross: What?

Phoebe: You just abandoned your whole belief system. I mean, before, I didn't agree with you, but at least I respected you. How, how, how are you going to go into work tomorrow? How, how are you going to face the other science guys? How, how are you going to face yourself? Oh! That was fun. So who's hungry?

[Whitey Grandad]

There is much that we cannot explain. Let's not ridicule someone who clearly feels threatened by events beyond their understanding.

[aintforever]

Just because YOU cannot explain something, doesn't mean there isn't a logical explanation.

[Matthew Le God]

Phoebe: Wasn't there a time when the brightest minds in the world believed that the world was flat? Now, are you telling me that you are so unbelievably arrogant that you can't admit that there's a teeny tiny possibility that you could be wrong about this?

 

This is where Phoebe's point falls down.

 

Those that believed the earth to be flat did not do so with any use of scientific method to come to their conclusions. Belief in a flat earth was influenced by myth, legend and religious scriptures that were considered infallible and later shown to be wrong by those using scientific method.

 

Ross's view of evolution does however have its roots in scientific method and has lots of evidence supporting it, it is also open to change unlike that of myth, legend and religion which are considered set in stone and non changeable. You can't compare the two. Ross really should have pointed this out to his friend.

Edited 5 September, 2011 by Matthew Le God

[The Kraken]

I'm really not sure whether to laugh at all this or not, as it just seems a bit cruel.

 

Nah, f*ck it, I'm laughing. Thanks MLG, you are an unintentional comedy genius.

[Whitey Grandad]

Just because YOU cannot explain something, doesn't mean there isn't a logical explanation.

 

The logical explanation is that there is a ghost, or more probably a poltergeist.

[Dig Dig]

The logical explanation is that there is a ghost, or more probably a poltergeist.

 

No it isn't. The most logical explaination is that the OP made it up!

[Smirking_Saint]

Ooo ooo ooo

 

I can do a MLG

 

Why are you ignoring my post MLG ??

[saint boggy]

You must be one boring c*nt to go for a beer with.

 

"Oi Oi Savaloy, I would smash her back gate right in!"

 

MLT: "How do you know she has a back gate? Statistics show that blah blah percent of females actually reside in flats, without taking into account that blah blah percent of properties don't actually have access to the rear of the property, leaving blah blah blah f*****g blah percent of properties that do contain rear access the chances are she doesn't live in one. So no, you propably are not going to smash her back gate in."

 

*MLT looks around to find previously full pub, empty.*

 

:lol:.......made me chuckle!!.....

[scotty]

:lol:.......made me chuckle!!.....

 

 

+1

[saint boggy]

Sorry I haven't posted over the weekend, but it was the weekend and I was out and about having fun, and not stuck in the office or at home on PC like some sad people.

 

As far as activities go, nothing has happened over the weekend, thank god. And I have no plans to get a vicar in the house, I just hope & pray it'll go away.

Obviously the stern talking to ,worked! ........

[scotty]

Obviously the stern talking to ,worked! ........

 

I bet you just sneaked that post in knowing that your three dailies start again in 7 minutes

[SuperMikey]

Be nice to MLG children, he just wants to be loved. There is no hard proof either for or against 'ghosts', so I would probably leave it open-ended for a bit until we do have evidence to suggest an answer.

[scott_saints]

No evidence for or against?

 

There's a f**k load more evidence against it. But people dont want to believe it so that they can carry on acting like a kid and pretending there are invisible people walking around everywhere and sitting on people.

[Golac's Cunning Stunts]

I nominate this thread for the classics hall of fame. I had mlg on ignore but he gets quoted so much on here that it's not worth it. MLG - you a comedy genius. Do you really teach people? I can just imagine -

MLG: Where is your homework?

Kid: Sorry sir, the dog ate it

MLG: hmm, this sounds highly irregular. Canines are carnivores and logic would suggest that paper, which is mad from lumber, would not be of interest to them in their dietary habits

Kid: Honest Sir, you have to believe me, it's true

MLG: You will have a detention in which you will write a thesis on Darwinian Evolution. And don't put any rubbish in there about God.

 

On another note, ghosts do exist - and they are on YouTube. Just google it.

 

Finally to MLG - if God doesn't exist, how do you explain DNA?

[Smirking_Saint]

i nominate this thread for the classics hall of fame. I had mlg on ignore but he gets quoted so much on here that it's not worth it. Mlg - you a comedy genius. Do you really teach people? I can just imagine -

mlg: Where is your homework?

Kid: Sorry sir, the dog ate it

mlg: Hmm, this sounds highly irregular. Canines are carnivores and logic would suggest that paper, which is mad from lumber, would not be of interest to them in their dietary habits

kid: Honest sir, you have to believe me, it's true

mlg: You will have a detention in which you will write a thesis on darwinian evolution. And don't put any rubbish in there about god.

 

On another note, ghosts do exist - and they are on youtube. Just google it.

finally to mlg - if god doesn't exist, how do you explain dna?

 

eh ?

[Golac's Cunning Stunts]

The argument goes something along these lines:

 

All codes, languages, computer protocols etc have an intelligence behind them that devised the code in the first place. Codes don't just evolve from randomness.For example, experiments have been done with monkeys where they let them type randomly on keyboards to see if they produce anything legible. Of course, they don't. The chances of an ape randomly hitting keys and producing a legible sentence are practically zero.

 

DNA’s definition as a literal code (and not a figurative one) is nearly universal in the entire body of biological literature since the 1960′s. Therefore, as with all codes, there must be an intelligent design behind it. This may or may not be "God" as we know God from the Bible, but an intelligent design none the less.

 

Here is a link to the reasoning if you are so interested http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/read-prove-god-exists/