If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WTKR)   Boy killed in tornado last May shows up in recent photo. I'm not saying it's a ghost, but, it's a ghost   (wtkr.com) divider line 111
    More: Strange, tornadoes  
•       •       •

14903 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Nov 2013 at 2:19 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

111 Comments   (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
2013-11-26 06:37:11 PM  

Highroller48: kg2095: Even though I've had an inexplicable experience I don't believe or disbelieve in ghosts. There is no solid evidence to support either position.

nekom: DCBuck: That "they" can't prove ghosts exist, does not conclusively establish that they do not exist

And nothing can prove that.  However, the lack of any compelling evidence of their existence is quite enough for me to dismiss it as unlikely.  However, a ration mind is always willing to be proven wrong.  Do I think ghosts exist?  Absolutely not.  Would I change my opinion if shown concrete proof that they do?  Of course.

This line of argument demonstrates the interesting logical fallacy that "believers" have used for aeons.

The fact that, in all of our civilizaton's existence, there has NEVER even ONCE been a single shred of proof of the existence of anything supernatural is, in and of itself, extremely compelling evidence that the supernatural is an invention of our own imaginations.  It's a popular saying that "the absence of evidence is not evidence", however that's far too generalized.  The complete absence of anything beyond conjecture, guessing and wishful thinking is, indeed, strong evidence against the possibility of paranormal phenomena.  I can't "prove" to you that human babies have NEVER been delivered by a stork, but you cannot in turn say that you're entitled to logically suggest it as a realistic possibility just because you raise it.

Saying there's "no proof ghosts DON'T exist" is akin to saying "there's no proof a stork never brought a baby".  You can't, in this case, disprove the negative.  However, the complete and utter lack of evidence is certainly grounds to discount the idea as pure fantasy.  Probability, common-sense, and a lack of anything to suggest otherwise are VERY strong evidence, indeed, in favour of the skeptics' point of view.

Not only has there never once been a single shred of proof of the existence of anything supernatural, it is impossible for there ever to be proof of the supernatural because anything there is proof of is, by definition, natural.

For instance, if there were proof that people could communicate psychically then a hundred years later nobody would think of psychic communication as supernatural, they would instead think of it as entirely natural. This has in fact already happened. For instance, we have proven germs exist, yet to an educated man of medieval times germs would have been a supernatural concept. Time, technology, and learning changes our ability to perceive and understand things, and in so doing moves the boundary between the natural world and the "supernatural" world.

Therefore the fact we have seen no concrete evidence of anything that modern man considers to be supernatural really means nothing, because anything we consider supernatural is thought of as such precisely because there is no evidence it is natural.

Also, we can PROVE human babies have never been delivered by storks (in the traditional sense where no coitus, gestation in the mothers womb, and act of birth is involved, not a stork being found standing next to a newborn baby that was left in a field 2000 years ago), so that was just stupid.

All that being said, your core point is totally fine, you just said a lot of things getting there that don't really work.
2013-11-26 06:42:41 PM  

namegoeshere: I miss film.

I get that feeling every now and then and think "I should bring my dark room equipment out of the boxes in the basement and set up a darkroom again".

Then I just open Photoshop and a bottle of vinegar and the feeling goes away.
2013-11-26 06:50:32 PM  
arentol: anything there is proof of is, by definition, natural.

That's kind of the point I was making, summed up nicely.  Bring someone from 500 years ago here and show them an ipad:  "What manner of sorcery is this!?!?".  It was Clarke (I think) who said any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
2013-11-26 06:54:39 PM  

DCBuck: GnomePaladin: valar_morghulis: Russ1642: Know how I know it's not a ghost? Ghosts don't exist, dumbasses!

Prove it.

You can't prove a negative.  If people assert there are ghosts (or unicorns, or flying spaghetti monsters), the burden of proof is on them.

If you were making a joke then I'm just being a wet blanket asshole.  Not a state I'm exactly unfamiliar with :).

This has always bothered me. Not your position, which is probably right ("probably," because I'm not so strident), but your approach to communicating it. The burden of proof is on "them" in an argument in which "they" are trying to convince you of something. In a context such as this, where we have persons ("them") espousing or discussing a belief independently of you, no burden exists on "them." They have not proved to you that ghosts exist, certainly, but "they" weren't trying to. Your unsupported conclusory statement has also not proved that ghosts don't exist. That "they" can't prove ghosts exist, does not conclusively establish that they do not exist. For example, many new species of animal have recenly been discovered in Australia. If I had a chance encounter with one of these creatures prior to its official discovery, and asserted its existence, you could state "know how I know it's not [animal x]? [animal x]s don't exist, dumbass." In the likely event that I could not produce evidence of its existence, you would not need to prove to me that it did not exist to reasonably reject my position. However, the fact that you did not have the burden of proving the creature's existence for purposes of taking your position did not also equate to proof of its non-existence.

I see this a lot on Fark, where two or more people are discussing ghosts, gods, etc., and someone jumps in with the equivalent of "they don't exist, dumbasses." I may agree with you substantively, but don't understand what value you think that type of statement has to the discussion. Unless you want to get into detail about specific verifable reasons for the impossibility of the existence of ghosts (or anything else), you might want to hold back on the "dumbass" talk. You might be right (in a vacuum, I can't tell much from your brief ineloquent pronouncement), but you're also not adding anything other than noise.


It doesn't advance one's case (whether it be belief or skepticism) if they come in and shiat on people who don't share the same thoughts or ideas on something.
2013-11-26 07:09:11 PM  
Was it this kid?
2013-11-26 07:47:42 PM  

2013-11-26 08:01:45 PM  

nekom: arentol: anything there is proof of is, by definition, natural.

That's kind of the point I was making, summed up nicely.  Bring someone from 500 years ago here and show them an ipad:  "What manner of sorcery is this!?!?".  It was Clarke (I think) who said any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

The difference being that given enough time, you can explain the technology to someone who at first thinks it's magical. People who believe in the supernatural think they're explaining something when they say, "It's magic!" but they're not. If you want to believe in imaginary things, you need to come up with an explanation for HOW these things can violate physical laws. I can't see any point to claiming belief in something you can't even properly describe. If gods are beings that just have access to superior technology, then that technology can be explained.
2013-11-26 08:26:18 PM  

Look out Princess! There's a farking headless ghost behind you!
2013-11-26 08:52:37 PM  

oh yea...
2013-11-27 03:23:11 AM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: santadog: With one link to a site that explained exactly how David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear, I dashed all his hopes of real magic in the world.

Was it a rotating platform or something? That's what I always assumed when I saw that back in the day.

My favorite "Too soon?" joke:

"I can make the Statue of Liberty disappear!"
D. Copperfield, 1983

"I can top that."
O. b. Laden, 2001

/Aisle seat, please
2013-11-27 06:42:29 AM  

Closed: My son died in March of this year. It is unbearable and good for this father for finding something to get him through another day. I can tell the "grieving process" discussed upthread is by someone that has never lost a child. There are no processes, especially around the holidays for a parent that will be going through their first Thanksgiving and Christmas without their child.

I'm so very sorry for your loss. I experienced the same thing with my first daughter 14 years ago. You never forget but simply learn to smile again.
Displayed 11 of 111 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter

In Other Media

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.