Damb you heard about that did you? So I was really really drunk and she looked so hot and wow the sex was great until I woke up the next morning to Chewbacca spooning me. Just one thing I could never figure out but for the rest of the day I walked around like a duck.

I think that way of thinking is rational. Here's my analogy, If I see an object flying around the sky moving faster than humanly possible, it's entirely logical for me to say I saw a UFO. Where I draw the line is if I said I saw a UFO from outer space with aliens onboard. The fact is, I don't know what I saw because I don't have any information beyond what my eyes saw. The same holds true for ghosts. I saw a "ghost" once. I was standing outside of my house and what I saw was a man standing right next to a tree across the street from my house. He was wearing a black hat, a black trenchcoat, black pants and black shoes. At that moment I never for a seconded doubted what I was looking at, this was a man, no question. I yelled out to scare off this suspicious looking guy away from my neighbor's house, but he didn't move. I walked a little closer and yelled I'm going to call the cops. No reaction and I had moved close enough to start doubting my absolute assertion in my mind that this was a man. I carefully inched a little closer, and I realized what my brain had interpreted as a man in black was nothing more than an oddly shaped shadow cast onto the tree. Had I gone inside without investigating what I saw, I would have felt completely rational thinking I saw a man standing by a tree dressed all in black. We can't always trust how our brains to interpret what we see.

which is why i wouldn't ever build a belief system on a handful of visual perceptions e.g., @paul1967. to be perfectly clear, this whole 'ghost stuff' to me is one of the least impressive occurrences in what i call natural phenomena. far more interesting i find e.g. the reported manipulation of water molecules through human consciousness, as implemented by Masaru Emoto. but still, i wouldn't say i believe - belief is not part of my matrix in this life, for which i am grateful, as it seems so useless altogether.

I respect that you think that could be true and maybe it is, but I have not read anything that would convince me that it is true. If you have any articles that you could send my way I would take a look at them.

@paul1967 Well I'm not sure if there are online articles, because most of my research comes from pre internet days, but I know the theory was first advanced by Victorian metaphysician Elliott O'Donnell, became very popular in the 1960's as the "Stone Tape" theory (after the film by Nigel Neil of the same name) and it has been written about by parapsychologist Hans Holzer after trying to debunk a number of so called Spirit photographs lead him to theorise that psychic residue might show up on photographs in the same way human/animal auras become visible in spectrographs.
Such reported "reception events" are notable in being different from alleged hauntings in that they are repetitive, do not communicate or react to stimuli and in many cases continue even after architectural changes are made, such as the cliche of walking through walls, walking/floating on long demolished stairways, or only the upper half of a recording showing after a floor has been raised.

Yes, we all do, for example, I believe life exists somewhere out in the universe other than Earth, but at least I have a case for life here on Earth. With ghosts, we have nothing other than testimonial evidence which is exactly what we have for there being a God. I may come off as being judgemental, but I'm asking these questions so that I can understand why people choose to believe in things when there is no rational reason for that belief. I think it's fear of death and I suspect that the same reason people believe in God. By the way, I do not doubt that I'm as guilty of this type of thinking myself, and when someone points it out, I hope I'm willing to change my mind.

I want you to know that I don't think you're an irrational person. I'm irrational about plenty of things in my life, and I don't view myself as being an irrational person. I should have made more effort in my main post to be clear about that. We are all humans, and we are all irrational about something, and I might even say many things in our lifetime, but that doesn't mean that we are on the whole, irrational people. I accept that you concluded that the best explanation for what you saw was a ghost, and I'm certain you understand that your conclusions of what you saw, is only valid to you. It's the same thing when a theist says to me I know God is real because I have a personal experience that is undeniable yet I can't demonstrate it or replicate it to you.

@paul1967 Thank you for your reply but you are missing my point. While I don't believe in the supernatural and therefore by definition don't believe in God I will accept there are things we do not have an explanation for. I will also happily use the culturally normed label for these things even though I do not necessarily agree with the explanation attached. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, OK, I'll call it a duck, doesn't mean I am convinced it's a duck without DNA tests, but duck is a handy label.

The problem I have is with the division between skeptics and free thinkers, and the way we handle data.We have a horrible tendency to throw away data just because it says things we think it shouldn't . More scientific papers never get written because the data doesn't support the hypothesis than are ever published. If we can't replicate something we assume the initial results were faulty and don't seriously investigate the possibility that the conditions weren't the same., because how the hell do you really adequately replicate the conditions of a phenomena you simply don't understand.

The first specimens of the Platypus sent back to England were declared a fraud because a mammal which laid eggs and had a duck's bill couldn't exist. So is totally discounting things because they don't fit your expectations or can't be replicated on demand (neither can eclipses) any less irrational than accepting one's personal experiences as real.

PS. I can be totally irrational but it is usually about things like expecting people to do what they say they are going to do.

@Kimba I share your belief pattern. I identify myself as Atheist but have had so many personal experiences that leave me believing there is 'something'. I don't know what that 'something' is but I'm hungry to explore and learn of possibilities. I belong to a research group and we have captured 'things' on static cameras and have had intelligent responses to prompts, we have captured disembodied voices with intelligent responses. I wish I had all the answers.....

@Kimba, thank you for your explanation for what i perceive as plain experience of the senses, without being able or deeming it necessary to name it, let alone 'believe' in it, whatever it is. nature has it's ways, & many of them i don't understand. doesn't mean they don't exist - or that i have to believe in them. i know what i see.

I used to ghost hun t but I was also a god believer at the time.

That is probably true unless one of them can offer a valid reason for believing which would require testable evidence for a ghost. If there were ghosts, I would reconsider my belief in God. Keyword "reconsider."

@paul1967, but that's the thing: i don't go that far to believe in anything, just because my senses let me know that something inexplicable is. i see, i know i see, why let belief interfere with my perception?