It was a late summer evening, back in August of '74. I was recently out of the service and hitchhiking around the West Coast. I was lying in a field in Humbolt County, California just me and the Stars. Suddenly I was surrounded by an amazing display of light and color and several beings emerged and approached me. They didn’t seem to be made of a material substance and glided more than walked. They started speaking to me – although they didn’t seem to be opening and shutting their mouths or making sounds, their words appeared in my mind, clear as a bell. They explained that they inhabited a higher plane of existence where everyone was made of pure energy and that they occasionally met with humans or were sensed by unusually sensitive people. They said that humans needed to make an effort to be good to eachother, that actions such as war had a negative impact upon all of the planes of existence. It was an amazing experience.
You forgot to mention how much peyote you ate.
So…you saw “energetic beings” that didn’t seem to walk or make any real noise but caused you to hear voices in your head?
Define “plane of existence.” What does it mean to be made of “pure energy?” Assuming these “beings” were real, how do you know they were telling the truth? How do you know you didn’t imagine it? How do you know you didn’t smoke just a little too much grass and start talking to hippies?
My main question is this: “Why do you believe that there were actual beings of energy, as opposed to a dream or hallucination?”
Now, before you get angry, consider a similar situation. You’re sitting at home, minding your own business, when suddenly your toaster emits a stunning pyrotechnic display, and then begins speaking to you. It says that it’s really a toaster from an alternate dimension, where all appliances are sentient. Sometimes they merge with existing appliances in our dimension in order to observe us. Then it leaves, and your toaster is just a toaster again.
Would you believe that there were really alternate-dimensional sentient toasters, or would you think that you were hallucinating? Why would that situation be any different than what you experienced?
handsomeharold, perhaps your stories would be more appreciated here.
Are you familiar with a guy named John Shelby Spong? He’s an Episcopalian Bishop who has generated a lot of controversey with his attempts to redefine Christianity in more rationalist terms.
He has wriiten books such as Why Christianity Must Change or Die and *Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism.
One of his more seminal essays can be found here.
In this essay he enumerates 12 “theses” for a new Christianity. (Even if you don’t read the essay at least scroll down to the theses) I think you will find that they are quite radical as Christianity goes, but you may find them appealing all the same. I would also highly recommend seeking out his Why Christianity Must Change or Die.
Spong is regarded as a heretic by many but I find him very refreshing. The fact that he can speak to and move a crusty agnostic like me speaks volumes about him.
His website can be found here.
Sorry for that hijack, everybody.
[b[handsomeharry**:
I saw that episode. It turned to be Mr. Burns.
The latter is an observation, not a position of belief. People have said in this thread that ghosts are fictional. Those are assertions as well, which much be accounted for as well. You will contend that there must be evidence for a positive (i.e. contradictory) assertion before the skeptics’ assertion is reversed. My point is the default position is “we don’t know” and a concrete step in either direction is so far, an assumption.
Thank you. It’s really nice that you would help me with this. I’m intellectually okay with 11 out of the 12 of Spong’s issues and emotionally okay with about 7. Probably shouldn’t use emotionally and okay together right now though. A lot of what Spong said, I’ve thought for a long time, but been too guilt-stricken to address. :([End of Hijack]
Haha! I knew it. It’s always telepathy.
Thank’s for sharing your story, handsomeharold. However, until I get my own personal light show, you will understand if I remain unconvinced. If you see these beings again, be sure to point them in my direction. I’d love to have a chat with them.
And if you were on any drugs, be sure to send them my direction too.
[continued hijack]
The fact that you feel so guilty about this makes it much clearer to me why many people are so absolutely rigid in their religious beliefs.
I have to admit, being an atheist/agnostic who grew up in a fairly non-religious household, I’ve never had to confront any sort of “crisis of faith”, and until now, I never really gave it much thought. Now that I think about it, the best I can do to understand it is to imagine that I was somehow able, after much thought, to reach the logical conclusion that torturing small children would be a good thing for me to do. In other words, reaching a conclusion that would, based on everything I knew up until that point, be downright evil.
I guess that the next time I’m debating with a fundi who refuses to budge an inch no matter the evidence against their position, I should realize that it’s probably because that, for them, the alternative is too . . . frightening? . . . emotionally devastating? . . . not sure what word would best describe it . . . for them to even consider.
[/continued hijack]
This (and the underlying implication that the Holy Spirit is the ghost of a dead person) is somewhat at variance with mainstream Christian doctrine (as if that means a whole heaping lot).
Changing your beliefs starts out just uncomfortable, then frightening, then vulnerable, kind of empty. That’s where most people stop, because it hurts too much. If they continue there’s loss, sorrow, grief, fear, panic, GUILT, and betrayal, etc. I don’t know how long that goes on, yet Don’t go easy on the fundie though. I didn’t lose any of my beliefs. Just the “programmed” ones that I didn’t realize, weren’t my own. 99% of my guilt can be traced one specific part of doctrine. [end of hijack again, really]
It’s called by some, the Shyness Effect, i.e., ghosts are repelled by skepticism.
I’m sure they would have realized that it was an opinion question with an opinion for an answer.
You missed my point, I’m not saying I’m an atheist and I’m not saying I’m not-that’s irrelevant.
In addition, just because you believe in God, the Holy Spirit, etc does not automatically mean you have to believe in every other ‘supernatural thing’.
Why would it?
Well, that depends on your Christian perspective-some Christians think Jesus was God, half-God, just a man (IIRC, Christian scientists believe this).
If you subscribe to Jesus having some sort of “God” in him, then doesn’t that aspect sort of rule out the average person having a ghost?
In addition, and my memory is foggy, doesn’t the bible say something to the effect of we will stay in the ground until judgment day? Meaning, from a Christian perspective (supposing I’m right), ghosts aren’t people?
Interesting. The funny thing is that I classify myself as “skeptical”, yet I can see the image on the photograph quite clearly. You’d think that my skepticism would keep me from seeing the image.
Does anyone here who claims to believe in ghosts also believe in Santa Claus, unicorns, fairies and the like?
Assusming that you don’t, what do you claim the differences are between ghosts and these other things, and how did you arrive at your conclusions?
Well personally i dont believe in “ghosts”, however (as many dopers have noted they can) i can see the image of a figure and if skepticism blocks sight of “ghosts” then by definition this is not a ghost.
BBC online news article:
if this door opening is happening on a regular basis why only check the footage on one occasion? this occasion just happens to be the occasion when there’s a “ghost”, if this happened in october then we should see more of this entity as the camera should be being regularly checked. Unless it’s a hoax and IMHO it is. Now i have no actual evidence relating to my opinion however it is opinion and those who say that this is a “ghost” have equally little evidence short of a grainy image which shows nothing extraordinary exceopt someone with a horrible dress-sense opening a door. Seriously if we were to believe everyone who opened fire-doors at odd times and wore older looking clothes was a ghost i know a lot of people who should be in Area 52 (the ghost version of Area 51) right now. Also how do we know this figure’s dress is period all we have is grainy CCTV images which jerk up and down. In the right light with bad enough resolution a camera image/film could be misconstrued as anything at all. By the way this is the BBC article.
Great! so far we’ve determined:
- Saying something exists 'cause you saw it isn’t ‘proof,’ or even evidence. It’s an anecdote. Check.
- Some people are offended if you call them psychotic. Check.
- Can’t prove one myth with another myth. Check.
Now, can anyone find any details or information regarding the evidence at hand? The tape from the castle? remember it? 
I recall reading a Ripley’s Believe It or Not book when I was seven that called Hampton Court “the most haunted building in England.” Hampton Court has been the subject of endless ghost stories and almost as many attempted debunkings.
Here’s a quote from a 2001 story from the Beeb about one of the most famous investigations.
Hampton Court is a famous tourist attraction largely because of its supposed hauntings. Here’s an account of one tourist’s visit and a partial list of various hauntings. Notice the guides play up the supernatural aspect with lots and lots of ghost stories and special spook-themed “lantern tours” which are “not recommended for children.” Also note the employee in the article (jokingly?) suggests the author encountered a ghost. I propose the simplest solution is a classic hoax of the “Skunk Ape Gift Shop owner keeps finding skunk ape evidence” variety.
Anyone care to rebutt this theory (without invoking the Holy Ghost, Philadelphia incident, Thetans, etc.)? Anyone have any info on why the camera looks like its being shaken by a skunk ape? Are security camera in the U.K. usually hung on a string? Let’s get some facts up in here, for Cecil’s sake.