Do you believe in the supernatural..?

[Robin Edwards]

That's very interesting. I too had my first 'supernatural' experience in 1993, and it was shared by my wife, although we were in different parts of the flat at the time. I'll only say that it was not frightening to either of us, neither of us saw anything 'spooky' and ensuing events seem to be related to that experience, though decades later. I have never seen a ghost or apparition and doubt I ever shall.

I've had 30 years where I have tried to debunk the experiences that three sober adults had on a single night in an old holiday cottage rental and can't. If an individual's complex mind can cause imagination of sound and vision, then fine but when different individuals all experience similar things at the same time then I feel this makes the theory difficult to substantiate.

In my personal opinion, 95% of claims can be debunked or put down to minds playing tricks but there are just some claims that seem to defy all logical explanation.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I've had 30 years where I have tried to debunk the experiences that three sober adults had on a single night in an old holiday cottage rental and can't. If an individual's complex mind can cause imagination of sound and vision, then fine but when different individuals all experience similar things at the same time then I feel this makes the theory difficult to substantiate.

In my personal opinion, 95% of claims can be debunked or put down to minds playing tricks but there are just some claims that seem to defy all logical explanation.

How often do things happen that cannot be explained but have multiple witnesses whose accounts match or almost-match? I'd argue that it's vanishingly rare. If three people all report seeing similar things but there's no other evidence of the thing they claim to have seem, the conclusion should not be "well it was probably a ghost then". Has one of the three influenced the other two? Was one of them playing a prank on the others? If the three were staying in a holiday cottage they almost certainly already knew each other- we have centuries of evidence of people playing tricks or parlour games with friends, of people being mistaken, and of people's accounts being influenced by the accounts of others. There's a distinct lack of any evidence for ghosts existing outside of personal testimony, which is notoriously unreliable.

These ghosts or spirits tend not to leave much evidence, and usually only seem to appear to those who are primed to see them... which is suspiciously convenient. Absence of evidence is in reality quite strong evidence of absence, even if it isn't absolutely conclusive.

 

[Acey]

Another thing to consider,if there were ghosts and ghoulies and things that go bump in the night,then whatever you are up to there could be dozens of eyes watching you ,think about it

 

[DynamicSpirit]

When it comes to discussion of religious matters, the word "agnostic" is possibly the most often misused. Gnosticism refers to knowledge, "agnostic" meaning without knowledge. It's almost always used, by both religious and non-religious people, as if it means something akin to "sitting on the fence" on the question of God.

I don't see that as a misuse of the word. It is after all useful to have a word that describes the state of sitting on the fence with regard to whether a God exists, and we have no other word that serves that purpose, so why not 'agnostic'? And there's no contradiction with using 'agnostic' = 'don't know either way' and also using 'agnostic atheist' = 'inclined towards atheism but willing to be persuaded the other way' and ditto for 'agnostic theist'.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I don't see that as a misuse of the word. It is after all useful to have a word that describes the state of sitting on the fence with regard to whether a God exists, and we have no other word that serves that purpose, so why not 'agnostic'? And there's no contradiction with using 'agnostic' = 'don't know either way' and also using 'agnostic atheist' = 'inclined towards atheism but willing to be persuaded the other way' and ditto for 'agnostic theist'.

The post I quoted wasn't misusing it (though my response suggested it was, so apologies for that) but it is often used solely to indicate fence-sitting, as if that's the main point of the word. There also seems to be a subset of people using it in a "Pascal's Wager" sort of a way, as if an all-knowing God (as Jahweh is generally understood to be) wouldn't see through that.

Though I'll readily admit I'm being overly pedantic on that front!

 

[Lost property]

Shall i be that guy? Go on then!

None of this is real. There are no ghosts or spooks. It is all in your mind. It is just coincidence, suggestibility, stress, trauma, tiredness, emotion or such like. It is your minds way of dealing with things that it cant quite compute.

Sorry to be a wet blanket.

Ps i do like a good ghost story but that is all they are, stories.

Is that right ?...well thanks for your myopic contribution.

I will reiterate, for your benefit, and as others have said, some people are more receptive than others.

You are invited to try and debunk my experiences with the incremental movement of the cool mat, the white feathers, inside the house, well away from any windows and the one in particular inside a vase, on a mantelpiece, above the fireplace, which was a present from the grandkids to my late lady.

Further, please explain why the RAF, at one station I was on, had an unofficial policy of not allowing anybody to work alone in a hangar used to store aircraft overnight. Couldn't be related to the ghost of an American who committed suicide during the war and whose hauntings subsequently included opening cockpits, switching lights on / off, moving small toolkits. Had one encounter one warm August evening, pushing a light aircraft inside for the night.... we suddenly encountered a very intense localised cold area ( see also Lindholme Willie. well known and seen by many).

Because anything to do with the supernatural is a bit like Marmite, non believers enjoy ridiculing those of us who do, people are reluctant to talk about their encounters.

Plus, as I've said, the dogs reaction at times. During our walks with friends on Cannock Chase, she has several times put the brakes on and hidden behind me....what she could sense I've no idea, but, we turned around and went back whence we had come.

I wouldn't. knowingly, spend any time in a location known to be haunted.

But one aspect I do agree on are those "professional " ghost trips...which, I suggest, are a rip off.

 

[Robin Edwards]

How often do things happen that cannot be explained but have multiple witnesses whose accounts match or almost-match? I'd argue that it's vanishingly rare. If three people all report seeing similar things but there's no other evidence of the thing they claim to have seem, the conclusion should not be "well it was probably a ghost then". Has one of the three influenced the other two? Was one of them playing a prank on the others? If the three were staying in a holiday cottage they almost certainly already knew each other- we have centuries of evidence of people playing tricks or parlour games with friends, of people being mistaken, and of people's accounts being influenced by the accounts of others. There's a distinct lack of any evidence for ghosts existing outside of personal testimony, which is notoriously unreliable.

These ghosts or spirits tend not to leave much evidence, and usually only seem to appear to those who are primed to see them... which is suspiciously convenient. Absence of evidence is in reality quite strong evidence of absence, even if it isn't absolutely conclusive.

Fair cop (hadn't realised I was dealing with script writer for Scooby Doo ) - We'd have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for those pesky kids RailUK Forum users!

Seriously though, in thirty years don't you think the bleeding obvious would have been bleeding obvious to debunk??

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Because anything to do with the supernatural is a bit like Marmite, non believers enjoy ridiculing those of us who do, people are reluctant to talk about their encounters.

I think you're correct here. Personally, I'm a bit on the fence: I do firmly believe that there is some kind of spiritual World beyond the purely physical and beyond what we'd consider to be science/the laws of physics, but at the same time my first instinct is to always look for a scientific explanation for individual events, and I think we do need to recognise that it's very easy for people to fool themselves with coincidences or to get emotionally caught up in feeling that significant things have happened when stuff actually has a perfectly rational explanation. So I'm kinda open to the idea of the supernatural while also feeling instinctively sceptical of many of the individual reports about it that we hear.

But having said all that, if we just unkindly ridicule everyone who has a story of something that they believe is supernatural, then people won't be willing to tell of their experiences, and then we lose information that might be informative or valuable.

 

[DarloRich]

You are invited to try and debunk my experiences with the incremental movement of the cool mat, the white feathers, inside the house, well away from any windows and the one in particular inside a vase, on a mantelpiece, above the fireplace, which was a present from the grandkids to my late lady.

I don't understand what you are saying here?

Further, please explain why the RAF, at one station I was on, had an unofficial policy of not allowing anybody to work alone in a hangar used to store aircraft overnight.

because the senior officers were worried about someone coming to harm and lying undiscovered, injured, for some time after an accident working on a plane at night? If I work in my office after a certain time I have to report to security so they know I am there.

I would also point out that the key word is "overnight" - why does the "haunting" only occur at night - I suggest it might be because people are tired and hear things go bump in the night. We all do it. I have worked alone late and heard things bump or crash. It isn't a ghost. it is just an old building being an old building.

Because anything to do with the supernatural is a bit like Marmite, non believers enjoy ridiculing those of us who do, people are reluctant to talk about their encounters.

I don't ridicule anyone. I accept that you honestly believe there are ghosts and believe that you have experienced one or at least a experienced a "supernatural" event. I simply state that my view is opposite to that and believe there will be an entirely rational explanation for all of this is we looked at everything in detail, with all the facts and in calm insolation.

Alternatively, I accept I may be wrong ( do you accept the same?) I may simply have the perceptive abilities of a brick. There could be ghosts swirling around me as I type this. I don't think so though.

These ghosts or spirits tend not to leave much evidence, and usually only seem to appear to those who are primed to see them... which is suspiciously convenient.

Absolutely - also why so these ghosts always appear at night? Why don't they come out at 14:00 on a sunny day?

If the three were staying in a holiday cottage they almost certainly already knew each other

the human mind is very suggestible.

I do firmly believe that there is some kind of spiritual World beyond the purely physical and beyond what we'd consider to be science/the laws of physics

I don't. I just don't think it stands up to rational examination. In saying that it would be nice to think I might see my dad or my granny again in a better place without suffering but I wont. I understand why that might be a comfort to people but I just cant agree with it. I am not trying to belittle anyone who does hold a faith. Far from it. Sometimes I think it would be a useful distraction from the vagaries and pain of life that we all suffer to hold a fiath ( and envy those who do a little) but I just cant reject my rational & logical thoughts on this topic.

 

[Robin Edwards]

the human mind is very suggestible.

Three adults one of which I've been married to for forty years were asleep and then weren't.

I'm beginning to think though Rich that you're the one with the very active imagination. There's no need for wild guessing as there's no obvious answer otherwise I wouldn't be typing this right now.

I'm however not claiming anything either other than something happened to me + 2 that remains inexplicable and unnatural to my scientific mind.

I cannot prove anymore than you can disprove and my mind remains ajar on the subject - that's all I've claimed.

 

[DarloRich]

I cannot prove anymore than you can disprove and my mind remains ajar on the subject

Absolutely - I state nothing more than that I don't agree with the belief in the supernatural and think there is a logical explanation.

PS: The problem with belief is it cant be proved or disproved!

 

[bahnause]

Am I really making fun of someone if I make it clear after a story like this that I don't believe in a supernatural event? And since I am old-fashioned, I also insist that the proof of something supernatural must come from the narrator and I am in no way obliged to prove the opposite.
The supernatural was since the beginning of mankind always the explanation for something inexplicable at this time. Where would we be today if every "supernatural" event had been accepted as such without ever seeking a scientific explanation for it? The equation of something unexplainable with something supernatural was and is wrong.
Thousands of these supernaatural events have been debunked since by science.
Do we really want to open the door again to charlatanry and religion (two words for the same thing) and how people were exploited and oppressed with it?

 

[GS250]

Am I really making fun of someone if I make it clear after a story like this that I don't believe in a supernatural event? And since I am old-fashioned, I also insist that the proof of something supernatural must come from the narrator and I am in no way obliged to prove the opposite.
The supernatural was since the beginning of mankind always the explanation for something inexplicable at this time. Where would we be today if every "supernatural" event had been accepted as such without ever seeking a scientific explanation for it? The equation of something unexplainable with something supernatural was and is wrong.
Thousands of these supernaatural events have been debunked since by science.
Do we really want to open the door again to charlatanry and religion (two words for the same thing) and how people were exploited and oppressed with it?

I tend to agree with this. My cousin suffered from depression for quite a few years. Even when he wasn't on medication, he claimed to have seen things that weren't quite right. Maybe his state of mind had affected his perception of reality? You do wonder how state of mind influenced suspected supernatural sightings.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Do we really want to open the door again to charlatanry and religion (two words for the same thing) and how people were exploited and oppressed with it?

Charlatanry and religion are not at all the same thing.

• Charlatanry is (roughly speaking) when people lie or offer fake products related to spirituality that cannot work - on occasions knowing that they are doing so fraudulently.
• Religion is (roughly speaking) when groups of people get together in support of shared spiritual beliefs.

Now it's true that on occasions the two can go together: The unverifiability of many spiritual beliefs does make it easier than in other fields for charlatans to take advantage, and there certainly have been times in the past when organised religion has moved into what we'd today see as charlatanry (selling of indulgences by the RC church comes to mind). But the fact that the two sometimes go together doesn't make them identical.

 

[Busaholic]

Now it's true that on occasions the two can go together: The unverifiability of many spiritual beliefs does make it easier than in other fields for charlatans to take advantage, and there certainly have been times in the past when organised religion has moved into what we'd today see as charlatanry (selling of indulgences by the RC church comes to mind). But the fact that the two sometimes go together doesn't make them identical.

Organised religion in the USA Southern states in the form of evangelist 'preachers' with their own TV channels and churches exhorting the credulous to 'see the light' and regularly donate hundreds of dollars to 'the cause' (i.e. them and their bank balances) is a very present and topical example.

 

[Purple Train]

Organised religion in the USA Southern states in the form of evangelist 'preachers' with their own TV channels and churches exhorting the credulous to 'see the light' and regularly donate hundreds of dollars to 'the cause' (i.e. them and their bank balances) is a very present and topical example.

Indeed and, as a Christian myself, it's exactly the kind of thing that dissuades me from the evangelical model of church-building. The trouble is that it is all tribal - Billy Graham's wonderful preaching is all-too-often used to give Mr Franklin's not-so-wonderful preaching a free pass. The alignment of those strains of church with the far-right nonsense doesn't help matters.

My idea of a welcoming, functioning church is one that is about collaboration rather than performance. In that way I find we are best equipped to use our limited human knowledge to grow in faith.

Tangential sermon over! In short, I agree with @DynamicSpirit: the fact that religion can be twisted into charlatanry by the unscrupulous is in no way demonstrative of the alleged interchangeability of the two.

Appleby over and out.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Plus, as I've said, the dogs reaction at times. During our walks with friends on Cannock Chase, she has several times put the brakes on and hidden behind me....what she could sense I've no idea, but, we turned around and went back whence we had come.

Out of curiosity... would these walks that are affecting the dog be between Penkridge and Littleton by any chance...? Specifically at a location called Mansty Gulley?

 

[Robin Edwards]

Am I really making fun of someone if I make it clear after a story like this that I don't believe in a supernatural event? And since I am old-fashioned, I also insist that the proof of something supernatural must come from the narrator and I am in no way obliged to prove the opposite.
The supernatural was since the beginning of mankind always the explanation for something inexplicable at this time. Where would we be today if every "supernatural" event had been accepted as such without ever seeking a scientific explanation for it? The equation of something unexplainable with something supernatural was and is wrong.
Thousands of these supernaatural events have been debunked since by science.
Do we really want to open the door again to charlatanry and religion (two words for the same thing) and how people were exploited and oppressed with it?

No you're not necessarily making fun of someone (unless you intend to do so of course) but I can disagree as I might do with much about the same on the subject of the paranormal. The thing is, I sounded just as sceptical as everyone else until something inexplicable happened to me and others that remains unknown. I eagerly await an obvious answer that goes beyond the, 'must have imagined it or he couldn't have been of sound mind' theory which is all too convenient for those with closed minds and no knowledge of the individuals or events.

I also don't draw any relevance between having an experience that can't be explained with religion whatsoever. I am about as non-religious as I could imagine being yet am quite happy that there will be some that get comfort from their religious belief. I certainly don't poke fun at them nor tell them they must be wrong because they can't prove what they believe in. History tells us that much that was seem as unearthly or 'magic' eventually could be explained through science and psychology. Having an open mind for me just says that we are not all-knowing and there will be things discovered that currently remain unknown or unexplained.

 

[Lost property]

I don't understand what you are saying here?


because the senior officers were worried about someone coming to harm and lying undiscovered, injured, for some time after an accident working on a plane at night? If I work in my office after a certain time I have to report to security so they know I am there.

I would also point out that the key word is "overnight" - why does the "haunting" only occur at night - I suggest it might be because people are tired and hear things go bump in the night. We all do it. I have worked alone late and heard things bump or crash. It isn't a ghost. it is just an old building being an old building.


I don't ridicule anyone. I accept that you honestly believe there are ghosts and believe that you have experienced one or at least a experienced a "supernatural" event. I simply state that my view is opposite to that and believe there will be an entirely rational explanation for all of this is we looked at everything in detail, with all the facts and in calm insolation.

Alternatively, I accept I may be wrong ( do you accept the same?) I may simply have the perceptive abilities of a brick. There could be ghosts swirling around me as I type this. I don't think so though.


Absolutely - also why so these ghosts always appear at night? Why don't they come out at 14:00 on a sunny day?


the human mind is very suggestible.


I don't. I just don't think it stands up to rational examination. In saying that it would be nice to think I might see my dad or my granny again in a better place without suffering but I wont. I understand why that might be a comfort to people but I just cant agree with it. I am not trying to belittle anyone who does hold a faith. Far from it. Sometimes I think it would be a useful distraction from the vagaries and pain of life that we all suffer to hold a fiath ( and envy those who do a little) but I just cant reject my rational & logical thoughts on this topic.

OK, please look up the spiritual significance of white angel feathers, then the connection will be clear.

This was in the era before "duty of care " was even constructed and Crown Immunity ensured the military couldn't be sued for negligence.

If you seriously believe senior officers are capable / were capable of understanding working conditions, you've been fortunate enough never to have encountered the arrogance and incompetence of the species. The events in the hangar were well known about and occurred frequently. My own encounter was actually in the late afternoon btw.

The one encountered at Rufforth Old Hall was again in the day, in an internal corridor with no external access. Some of the others reported at the gliding club by others were also in daylight.

I do, through nature and experience, take nobody and anything at face value...but, I'm happy to openly state I believe in what is termed paranormal / supernatural activity.

Out of curiosity... would these walks that are affecting the dog be between Penkridge and Littleton by any chance...? Specifically at a location called Mansty Gulley?

No, they were on a trail leading from the Forestry Commission car park, past what are now three fishing lakes but which, from the building remains were I would assume associated with the extensive mining on the Chase.

We generally prefer the Marquis Drive, former RAF Hednesford walk, hence how we found the ORR's hidden level crossing trainer, because there are far fewer cyclists "in the zone " as they say.

I am, however, curious as to why you refer to this specific location ?

 

[Busaholic]

I am, however, curious as to why you refer to this specific location ?

Because it was the scene of a triple murder in the 1960s?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Because it was the scene of a triple murder in the 1960s?

That's correct.

There were I think two other connected murders elsewhere on the Chase in the same timespan by the same murderer, but I am not sure where exactly those were.

 

[Lost property]

That's correct.

There were I think two other connected murders elsewhere on the Chase in the same timespan by the same murderer, but I am not sure where exactly those were.

Thanks for both replies re the murders. Having now searched for these, I vaguely remember the case from the time.

But as I say, the locations are not an area of the Chase we would go to. Whatever the dog sensed frightened her enough to hide behind me and as anybody who has a dog knows, once the proverbial doggy brakes go on, they remain firmly set and locked.

 

[Pinza-C55]

Of course not. It's silly.

 

[Purple Train]

Of course not. It's silly.

Could you elaborate, Colonel?

The "supernatural" encompasses such a broad range of things that it is virtually impossible to construct a full argument through a single word.

 

[Pinza-C55]

Could you elaborate, Colonel?

The "supernatural" encompasses such a broad range of things that it is virtually impossible to construct a full argument through a single word.

The term "supernatural" would apply to something that was outside the natural. Since science can only investigate the natural world can you explain how we can investigate the supernatural , Private ?

 

[spyinthesky]

For me
1. No ghosts
2. No communication with the dead
3. No time travel
4. No poltergeists
5. No God
6. No vampires/zombies/witches

I also don’t feel the need to debunk anyone who thinks otherwise, that is not my problem but theirs.

 

[Purple Train]

The term "supernatural" would apply to something that was outside the natural. Since science can only investigate the natural world can you explain how we can investigate the supernatural , Private ?

Ahem!

You are absolutely right, science as we know it cannot investigate the supernatural. I'm confused as to how the restriction in the scope of our science that you allude to can be definitive proof that such a thing doesn't exist. Just because we can't send a space probe out to check whether it's there, or see with our own eyes, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The key word is "science can only investigate the natural world" - that is a shortcoming of simple science. Surely you're not arguing that, if we insignificant humans don't have the capability to investigate something, it must be non-existent?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

For me
1. No ghosts
2. No communication with the dead
3. No time travel
4. No poltergeists
5. No God
6. No vampires/zombies/witches

I also don’t feel the need to debunk anyone who thinks otherwise, that is not my problem but theirs.

That's pretty much where I am on those subjects. Time travel in particular is one that bugs me, as there does seem to be a subset of otherwise scientifically-minded people who think it's simply a matter of technology. My position is that time travel in either direction is something that the laws of physics do not and could not permit.
On the witches thing, every so often there will be a slow news day and a story about some campaign to pardon those convicted of witchcraft in the past will get a bit of attention. Often these campaigns are made on the grounds of religious freedom, which assumes that (a) witchcraft is a real thing, and (b) those accused of it were actually witches, they just shouldn't have been persecuted for it. To me, this is getting the whole thing ass-backwards. A better argument would be that the very concept of witches and witchcraft is a nonsense, and those accused of it in the past were simply being persecuted for such terrible transgressions as being nonbelievers, or being lesbians, or being nonconformist in any number of ways, or simply turning down male advances for whatever reason.

I also agree with your final paragraph. Whilst people have the right to believe whatever mumbo-jumbo they choose, if they make a claim on the validity of those beliefs they have adopted the burden of proof. Even more so if they wish for me to live by those beliefs or begin believing them myself.

 

[spyinthesky]

That's pretty much where I am on those subjects. Time travel in particular is one that bugs me, as there does seem to be a subset of otherwise scientifically-minded people who think it's simply a matter of technology. My position is that time travel in either direction is something that the laws of physics do not and could not permit.
On the witches thing, every so often there will be a slow news day and a story about some campaign to pardon those convicted of witchcraft in the past will get a bit of attention. Often these campaigns are made on the grounds of religious freedom, which assumes that (a) witchcraft is a real thing, and (b) those accused of it were actually witches, they just shouldn't have been persecuted for it. To me, this is getting the whole thing ass-backwards. A better argument would be that the very concept of witches and witchcraft is a nonsense, and those accused of it in the past were simply being persecuted for such terrible transgressions as being nonbelievers, or being lesbians, or being nonconformist in any number of ways, or simply turning down male advances for whatever reason.

I also agree with your final paragraph. Whilst people have the right to believe whatever mumbo-jumbo they choose, if they make a claim on the validity of those beliefs they have adopted the burden of proof. Even more so if they wish for me to live by those beliefs or begin believing them myself.

But Town getting in the PL was pretty supernatural

 

[61653 HTAFC]

But Town getting in the PL was pretty supernatural

It was a remarkable achievement, but no magic or witchcraft required... though even to a sceptic like me, it is rather hard to describe that season without using the phrase "the stars were aligned". Poetic licence... astrophysics played no part, of course!