Are these supposed to be proof?
The dog one is a joke.
It looks like a dog but, "Its a demon". GTFO.
Yes, I do to some extent. However, I do not think they are all powerful and scary as depicted in fiction and visual media.
Ghosts are nothing more than a figment of our imagination. When people claim that they've seen a ghost, it's just their mind playing tricks on them. Sit in a dark room for a little bit and notice how the shadows start to actually look like they're moving. Most people know it's just the shadows and that is has nothing to do with ghosts, but some people have convinced themselves that they are seeing ghosts.
The only people who believe that ghosts exist are people who want to believe that ghosts exist.
Why is it, if something happens, that YOU cannot explain, God, or ghosts are the only explanation?
Why is it, if something happens, that YOU cannot explain, God, or ghosts are the only explanation?

So, how do you refute someone when they say things like that?
From your own research.
Or, do you just say, "That can't happen!" :yinyang:
![]()
Ya, I can say that. Because they don't exist.
Why is it, if something happens, that YOU cannot explain, God, or ghosts are the only explanation?
Using God for the gaps in knowledge is no explanation. It's called the God of the Gaps Fallacy. :2 cents:
Fuckin repped for logical fallacies.
Don't **** take some kind of science, logic, rhetoric, or philosophy classes anymore?:dunno: