Ghosts..... Have you ever seen them?

#1,026
#1,026
Tux said:
There is a big market out there for haunted items on ebay.

Anyone want to buy the Bell Witch Bad Luck Chair?



Bell Witch Adams Tennessee The Authentic Bell Witch Bad Luck Chair Haunted | eBay
Click to expand...

I would delete this post if I were you. Just a suggestion.

Behr said:
I can't stop you from "google".

I was told The Legend of The Bell Witch at a very young age, back in the early 70's. I was also told to never disrespect or mock The Bell Witch.
My 2 stories would not be believed and would be mocked.

Mock me for believing and I am fine with it.

Some old timers won't even mention it.

Would be interesting to get Grizz's take on this. He's from the same area.
Click to expand...
 
#1,028
#1,028
#1,030
#1,030
I cannot say what I saw was a ghost. Part of me says that it's not possible or rational to believe in such things. I can say that I have been more fascinated and opened minded about people who have had other strange encounters.
 
#1,031
#1,031
For ghosts sightings to occur, it means that ghosts must be corporeal. However, ghosts are, by the accounts of individuals who believe in ghosts, incorporeal phantasms. So, we have a case of a ghost-sighting being that of a sighting of a corporeal-incorporeal. That is a contradiction.

To avoid the contradiction, we have two options: say that ghosts exists but they cannot ever be sighted, felt, etc.; or, assert that ghosts exist and exist as corporeal beings, not incorporeal phantasms. The first option is actually defensible, but meaningless. The second option means that ghosts are materialized and, more importantly, always remain materialized (unless you are going to give to ghosts the divine power of self-causation...which, then ghosts become gods). If they always remain materialized, then we ought to be able to both track them and trap them. But, nobody in the recorded history of mankind has ever trapped a ghost. Why is it so tough to trap a ghost? Because they can simply walk through walls, locked doors, vanish into thin air, etc. But, doing all of these things reduces to the same thing: they are immaterial and incorporeal. Which, if so, we cannot ever ****ing see them.

And, if we think we see a ghost, either we are hallucinating (which humans, throughout recorded history, have done concerning many things and due to many causes) or we are just too stupid to actually look for and find the true cause of and the true phenomenon that we, in our ignorance, hurry, excitedness, anxiety, etc., thought was a phantom.

Basically, the concept of sightable ghosts is internally contradictory. Amazingly, I am more absolutely certain that ghosts cannot exist than I am about the non-existence of unicorns (not an internally contradictory concept), flying pigs (again, not an internally contradictory concept), leprechauns (once more, not internally contradictory), etc.

This is why the belief in ghosts and the willingness to believe in ghost-sightings is the height of imbecility. Believing in the existence of a supernatural God is more defensible than believing in ghosts. Not surprisingly, you dismiss the belief in god, yet accept the belief in ghosts.
 
#1,033
#1,033
Hey Doyle ( off topic) but don't you own a security company? I may have you confused with another poster.
 
#1,034
#1,034
therealUT said:
For ghosts sightings to occur, it means that ghosts must be corporeal. However, ghosts are, by the accounts of individuals who believe in ghosts, incorporeal phantasms. So, we have a case of a ghost-sighting being that of a sighting of a corporeal-incorporeal. That is a contradiction.

To avoid the contradiction, we have two options: say that ghosts exists but they cannot ever be sighted, felt, etc.; or, assert that ghosts exist and exist as corporeal beings, not incorporeal phantasms. The first option is actually defensible, but meaningless. The second option means that ghosts are materialized and, more importantly, always remain materialized (unless you are going to give to ghosts the divine power of self-causation...which, then ghosts become gods). If they always remain materialized, then we ought to be able to both track them and trap them. But, nobody in the recorded history of mankind has ever trapped a ghost. Why is it so tough to trap a ghost? Because they can simply walk through walls, locked doors, vanish into thin air, etc. But, doing all of these things reduces to the same thing: they are immaterial and incorporeal. Which, if so, we cannot ever ****ing see them.

And, if we think we see a ghost, either we are hallucinating (which humans, throughout recorded history, have done concerning many things and due to many causes) or we are just too stupid to actually look for and find the true cause of and the true phenomenon that we, in our ignorance, hurry, excitedness, anxiety, etc., thought was a phantom.

Basically, the concept of sightable ghosts is internally contradictory. Amazingly, I am more absolutely certain that ghosts cannot exist than I am about the non-existence of unicorns (not an internally contradictory concept), flying pigs (again, not an internally contradictory concept), leprechauns (once more, not internally contradictory), etc.

This is why the belief in ghosts and the willingness to believe in ghost-sightings is the height of imbecility. Believing in the existence of a supernatural God is more defensible than believing in ghosts. Not surprisingly, you dismiss the belief in god, yet accept the belief in ghosts.
Click to expand...


Yes and no. Your logic is quite sound . . . if you exclusively accept the western notion of ghosts as transparent apparitions which may or may not clearly possess human features. If you define these parapsychological phenomena more broadly as residual spiritual energy which may or may not be geographically fixated, may or may not have a consistently identifiable form and may or may not have historically or culturally specific associations with personages or spiritual entities, you then have a framework which can be used to explain, on an experiential basis, a portion of the supernatural revelations which are at the core of every religion known to man. In short, substitute “spirit” for the more narrowly defined imagery associated with ghosts.

More recently, research on near death experiences suggest that even the traditional concept of ghosts may not be entirely erroneous. In relating their NDE’s, people consistently speak, at the outset, of hovering above their bodies and looking down upon the proceedings as doctors and nurses attempt to resuscitate them. Accounts often make reference to their attempting to grab medical personnel in an effort to make them stop administering defibrillation, only to find that their analogs to flesh-and-blood hands pass through the space occupied by the arms of the attending physician.
 
#1,038
#1,038
That's it...I wanna fist fight every single one of you if you don't agree with me.

Meet me at Froyoz. They have delicious treats.
 
#1,039
#1,039
My ex and daughter who was 2 at the time swear we had a ghost in our apartment. They swear it was a young boy in a snow suit. A 2 year old has no reason to lie.

I never seen it.
 
#1,040
#1,040
volger said:
My ex and daughter whho was 2 at the time swear we had a ghost in our apartment. They swear it was a young boy in a snow suit. A 2 year old has no reason to lie.
Click to expand...

My 3 year old used to tell everyone he was a train conductor and/or pilot.
 
#1,044
#1,044
At 3 no doubt. Daughter had no idea what lying was about either.

Wife seen the abortion many times.
 
#1,049
#1,049
Volosaurus rex said:
Yes and no. Your logic is quite sound . . . if you exclusively accept the western notion of ghosts as transparent apparitions which may or may not clearly possess human features. If you define these parapsychological phenomena more broadly as residual spiritual energy which may or may not be geographically fixated, may or may not have a consistently identifiable form and may or may not have historically or culturally specific associations with personages or spiritual entities, you then have a framework which can be used to explain, on an experiential basis, a portion of the supernatural revelations which are at the core of every religion known to man. In short, substitute “spirit” for the more narrowly defined imagery associated with ghosts.

More recently, research on near death experiences suggest that even the traditional concept of ghosts may not be entirely erroneous. In relating their NDE’s, people consistently speak, at the outset, of hovering above their bodies and looking down upon the proceedings as doctors and nurses attempt to resuscitate them. Accounts often make reference to their attempting to grab medical personnel in an effort to make them stop administering defibrillation, only to find that their analogs to flesh-and-blood hands pass through the space occupied by the arms of the attending physician.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by residual energy? Composition and disposition of this residual energy? If it is seen, then it must be manifested through corporeal matter. To be visible is to be corporeal and particled.

As for NDEs, I've had dreams where I see myself sleeping. So, very much ready at hand common psychological assessments can and do take the supernatural (even take the "near-death") out of NDEs.
 
#1,050
#1,050
therealUT said:
What do you mean by residual energy? Composition and disposition of this residual energy? If it is seen, then it must be manifested through corporeal matter. To be visible is to be corporeal and particled.

As for NDEs, I've had dreams where I see myself sleeping. So, very much ready at hand common psychological assessments can and do take the supernatural (even take the "near-death") out of NDEs.
Click to expand...


I agree that certain psychological/spiritual experiences, as well as some purely neurological ones, exhibit traits in common with NDEs. Although I definitely would not recommend it to others, I once experienced, in the course of a seizure, that swirling vortex of color often described in NDE accounts as a "tunnel of light." I would argue that those threads of experiential commonality do not categorically "take the supernatural (even take the "near-death") out of NDEs." One could just as easily argue that they suggest that we are hardwired, to a greater or lesser degree, for transcendent experiences, a premise that, carried to its most controversial extreme, has been explained via the "God gene" hypothesis.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top