Random Acts of Kindness, or God?

[Gary A]

1. Pink unicorns, gummy bear scoffing marshmallows (giant or otherwise) is a belittling tactic, rather than a logical argument.

You’re missing the point. The point is to show that when trying to bring a claim such as yours into the realms of science, each one is comparatively illogical.

2. What people experience (and believe in) isn't the same thing as something that's clearly (and ludicrously) made up.

Really? A lot of people believe they were abducted by aliens. They swear blind and say they absolutely experienced. Does that prove that aliens exist and visit us regularly? Hardly. A lot of people believe in all sorts of things that are clearly (and ludicrously) made up.

3. Where are the millions of credible people who've seen pink unicorns (minus the price tag) or giant marshmallows (and not happen to be watching Ghostbusters)? Whereas in a recent study (2018) three out of five people believe they've seen a 'ghost'.

There’s that word again. “Believe”.

Believing you seen something gets you nowhere in science. This is the point to my whole argument. This isn’t a new thing, it’s not like people haven’t been claiming to witness paranormal activity for as long as anyone can remember, but for all those stories and all those people “believing” in seeing ghosts there is still not one shred of credible scientific evidence to back any of it up.

4. I was 9 years old when I saw the human form/ghost at the bottom of our stairs, not 19, listening to Jimi Hendrix, and off my face on magic mushrooms.

Regardless of age or whichever hallucinated states you were or weren’t in, there are still far more logical explanations to your experience than it being a literal ghost. This is another point I think you’re missing, I can’t say you absolutely didn’t see a ghost, I don’t have the evidence to do that. On the other side of that, though, you don’t have the evidence to say that you did. So all we’re really left with is what is the most logical explanation? Even you must agree that “it was definitely a ghost” isn’t that.

5. To compare a human form (regardless of whether you believe me or not) to a giant gummy bear scoffing marshmallow is ridiculous and insulting.

It’s not my intent to insult you so I apologise if I have. All I’m saying is that claims of something “paranormal” should be treated with the same scepticism as any other “out there” claim. My examples are extremely ridiculous, of course, but it’s more tongue in cheek rather than an attempt to insult or degrade so again, my bad for coming across that way.

The sentence that I've put in bold is why you are a closed-minded 'sceptic'.

You cannot use the word 'zero' and be considered a sceptic because zero leaves no room for doubt, and the last time I checked, sceptical means having reservations or doubts - not a raging case of bias.

Well I can use that word when talking of the existence of scientific evidence. You’ve used examples of lots of people “believing” they’ve seen a ghost as evidence of the afterlife. You’ve used examples of scientists believing the same. It would only be scientific evidence if there had been proper scientific tests and scrutiny carried out in order to prove or disprove the idea. So yes, when saying that there is zero scientific evidence of the afterlife or ghosts, I’m not wrong. If there were scientific evidence, you wouldn’t need to “believe” anything, it would already be proven.

Your attitude (and that of many other 'sceptics') seems to be that unless science can prove the afterlife - it does not exist. So, in that case, everything that science has proved so far mustn't have existed until it was discovered and proven.

Nonsense. My position is that there’s no point in “believing” in something unless it’s testable. Where does it end if that’s not the case? I don’t believe in the afterlife because I have no reason to. There’s no scientific evidence for it. It’s for those same reasons I don’t believe in numerology, astrology or someone being able to see my future by looking into a ball. If evidence becomes available then sure, I’m all ears, but it never does. It all, once again, boils down to “belief”.

Why do you presume I haven't explored other explanations, Gary? Is it because you see me as many 'sceptics' see people like me - as in gullible and 'a bit thick'?

I see it more as perhaps wanting to believe in something rather than trying to reach the most logical explanation. Hey, that doesn’t make you gullible or “thick”, it makes you human. That’s kind of my larger point, you’re a human being with emotions, all kinds of ways that your brain can trick you and all kinds of ways that your emotions can confirm that trick. That’s indeed been proven by science. It just makes you normal, I guess.

What fascinates me is why it should matter to you if people believe in the afterlife or not?

For the same reasons it matters to you that people believe your version of events. It’s not like this debate is a one way street.

What is it to you if I believe that my deceased grandmother visited me that morning?

You made the original argument that there was evidence of the afterlife. You used your experience as this evidence. It was you who brought this up. I can’t argue against it using an example of something you didn’t bring up, can I? I defend the idea of scepticism because I believe it’s a good life skill. Other than that, I couldn’t really care less if you believe in whatever you want. As I said, I’m pretty sure I’m not changing your mind here.

'Real' or not, it was one of the most joyous experiences of my life, and the memory of it keeps me going on my bad days. And that's what really matters...

Something I can’t and won’t disagree with. This isn’t about me trying to take that away, I’m merely defending a position. I hope this does continue to bring you joy.