Flipper
Don't get your flukes in a twist.
You can debate with people all day long, and to me it's a waste of time.
What, you mean they don't agree with you? Yup, clearly a waste of time.
Why do you have to have me believe you to not think a debate is a waste of time?
I don't care if you don't agree with me but don't see debate as a waste of time if you carry on believing stuff that doesn't have one shred of poof.
I'd say debating something with someone who makes wild claims like "Bigfoot sightings have been substantiated by many researchers and scientists" (this is simply not true - there is no hard evidence of Bigfoot's existence) and doesn't bother to back up their statements with any references or evidence is a little dull, but I live in hope. I try not to assume the next thread where people make wild claims will not be full of people behaving like people normally behave when they make wild claims, and that instead of indignation and evasion I get considered and convincing responses, even if I still disagreed with them.
FreedomFrog
I find this interesting because this also goes the other way too. I asked my ex one time that if he experienced a supernatural experience would he then believe? He said no because he'd feel he was going "crazy" and he'd run off to a shrink and get his head examined. So really, people who don't believe, showing proof wouldn't really matter no matter how much evidence could be shown...there will always be a reason why it couldn't and wouldn't have happened even to the point of making the person out to be "crazy".
I disagree, but need to clarify why.
If I saw a ghost but was unable to prove it I would assume that as I know humans are poor observers and eye witnesses, I must be mistaken or mad.
On the other hand if I had hard evidence ghosts or Bigfoot or Nessie or the Tooth-fairy existed I would be mad for NOT believing in them.
It is proven humans are poor observers and eyewitnesses and can unconsciously synthesize experiences and memories. It is not proven that any sighting of a ghost was of anything other than a figment of the imagination.
I think assuming a subjective experience overrules the above objective facts is unfounded, unwise and possibly even arrogant.
To me it seems more likely that I am mad or mistaken than that a form of entity that people have made claims about for Milena and never proved suddenly becomes real because of my subjective experience.
I haven't had any experiences with Bigfoot but I have with supernatural which I will not go into because of too many critics.
*sigh* Because you don't feel comfortable doing something unless you have 100% agreement and validation? That's sad. I can have a discussion about evolution with naysayers and critics hanging off the rafters - their disbelief doesn't bother me because I have sound scientific arguments and reams of evidence supporting what I think happened.
Maybe that - sound scientific arguments and reams of evidence - is why I feel secure discussing a subject and is why you don't? As I've said above, 'believers' blaming the skeptics for not believing is a traditional part of these discussions, as this thread proves again. Us skeptics are so bad and nasty the ghost-whisperers can't bear to even talk to us. Fortunately there are plenty of bulletin boards where such discussions would be accepted uncritically.
I just think it's interesting that even if a non-believer actually experienced stuff like this, they still wouldn't believe.
I think if you actually discuss this further with your partner you will find he would believe in ghosts if someone proved they existed. You'd also find until then he will not believe in them even if he has a 'ghost' experience, as he will not think his subjective and perhaps wholly internal experience defines external objective reality for exactly the same reason he believes others subjective possibly wholly internal experiences define subjective external reality.
But you seem to take comfort in a false characterisation of a skeptical viewpoint.