Badmovies.org Forum

     As a Christian, I vote for Option 3....I do know they exist, however....

http://www.yourghoststories.com/real-ghost-story.php?story=11750

I agree with Alan. The closest I've even been to a "Ghost" was in my aunt's house. I was going into the kitchen and when I turned on the light I saw a form disappear through a locked door that led into the dining room. All I could make out clearly was a blue plaid sleeve with an old man's hand sticking out of it.

I'm not a believer. 

Thus far I've seen nothing to make me believe, but I suppose I must admit that I kinda want them to exist...

The now refurbished National Film Archives building at 698 Church Street East, Pretoria was and probably still is haunted. You do not want to be in that building after 10 pm, trust me on that one.  :buggedout: I have never seen anything there but there is an area of that building where there is an icy cold spot: move out of that area and it goes away. Very scary.

I would love to live in a world where ghosts exist. Nevermind the metaphysical ramifications, I think it would be fascinating to live in a house with a malevolent spirit. Not pleasant, necessarily, just really interesting.

But I don't believe in them. I think the human brain is always seeking connections and trying to form connections where none exist. It's actually quite shocking how much human perception "fills in the blanks" for the stuff it doesn't notice.

Ghosts would be great, though.

I'd like to believe in ghosts too, if only because then I could finally fulfill my childhood ambition to become a Ghostbuster. Seriously, what could be better than bustin' ghosts?

When we move back to our refurbished premises, I'll give you a call to come help out with our "friends" there.  :wink:

Great true story:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOpAjLstDzo

I love ghost stories, esp. down here in NOLA, where there is so many ghost stories to be told. :teddyr:

Give me a scientific explanation and I'll believe they're real. But as it is, I find ghost stories to be bull crap.

I voted imagination. I don't think they exist, and even if I did I doubt any of those explanations would be correct. I think it would be scientifically explainable, even if we can't.

I am open to the existence of supernatural forces. However, I have an underlying distrust for human beings. Humanity's imagination is both our greatest asset and our greatest downfall. People embellish, exaggerate, even outright lie, and for a number of reasons, so I believe firmly that most recollections of ghosts, UFO's, etc., are mostly, if not completely, the product of imagination, even if the person recollecting is convinced of the truth of it. This does not mean that I dismiss the supernatural/paranormal. Quite the contrary. I am very fascinated by it. I just don't trust people. That sounds terribly cynical. I trust people in other ways, just not when it comes to the supernatural/paranormal.

I wouldn't put ghosts and UFOs in the same category.

I understand they are different things, but they still fall under the general umbrella of "unexplained mysteries." Besides, when it comes to people and my distrust of them when it comes to these kinds of things, no, I don't see any difference.

     There are many who believe that all paranormal activity arises from a common, extra-dimensional source; I recommend the works of Jaques Vallee.

     I agree with his premise, but believe that the source is demonic, with the purpose of decieving man about his own nature, and the nature of God.

The problem I have with this is that it attempts to wrap all of existence into a neat little package that doesn't really make much sense to me. I've also heard it said that dinosaurs were actually demons from before the great flood. The problem I have with things like this is that it seems to be the way things from nature that contradict the Bible are justified to make sure that the notion of it being "the Word of God" stays intact. Dinosaurs were living, breathing things that existed long before us. If the Bible is the word of God and explains the origin of everything, as it is said to be, it seems strange to me that dinosaurs wouldn't have been mentioned. Perhaps I'm taking Genesis too literally, but I'm sorry, before science stepped in and started providing so much information that contradicted the Creation story, everybody accepted that it was the way the world came into being. Now, of course, we can't take it literally, we have to bend nature to adhere to it and that's how you get things like fundamentalists saying that dinosaurs were demons that God wiped out with the flood.

I don't have any problem with faith. I have faith of my own. It just irks me when people try to force nature, be it natural or "paranormal," or whatever phrase one wants to use, to make it adhere to a religious doctrine. I haven't seen anything in my life that leads me to believe that Christians have any insight into man's "nature."

People embellish and exaggerate their experiences, and Christians are no different in my experience, yet I am supposed to take their interpretation of unexplained events more seriously for some reason. I was once a Christian.

I'll tell a story that I've told before. When I was a teenager, I went on a church youth retreat to the mountains. I believed in Christian doctrine and considered myself "born again." At that retreat, something happened that I will never forget, and will forever shade my views of religion.

One night, during an evening gathering, one teenage girl that was a member of the church started convulsing and talking in strange voices and having semi-violent outbursts. I knew her and knew that she was bit of a rebellious teenager. Anyway, the church pastors running the retreat interpreted that she was under demonic possession. She was taken to the girls area, and the rest of us boys went to our bunking area and proceeded to pray. It was a very, very dramatic scene. I was scared and also a little confused over the events. We were being told that the pastors were keeping her secluded and were attempting an “exorcism” of sorts, and that they eventually succeeded and the girl was back to normal. The next day, of course, everybody was fascinated with her and she was the center of attention. Everybody praised God and it was seen as a victory over Satan, etc. I was very uneasy about the situation.

Years later, in my early twenties, I ran into her at a restaurant. We sat down and spent almost an entire day catching up, since we hadn’t seen each other in some time. During that conversation, I found out that she too was no longer attending that church, and I asked about that incident. She admitted to me that she had faked the whole thing. She said she was just young and immature and wanted attention. She wasn’t really meaning to make fun of anything or make fools out of anybody, and she was very embarassed about her behavior and also carries a little guilt about it. I asked her if she still believes that everybody that was involved still thinks to this day that she was really possessed and that the event was supernatural. She felt, as did I, that this was probably true. That the pastors and those involved that night, and probably to this day even, believe that a teenage girl was possessed by a demon, and that they drove the demon out with the assistance of God. I have no doubt that this story was talked about many times.

I told her that if she felt bad about it, she might want to consider tracking down those pastors and coming clean about it. That event will always haunt me as to how human beings can be. Since then I don’t really take Christians interpretations of the supernatural any more or less seriously than I do anybody else. It’s also exactly why I am skeptical of the “miracles” told in religious texts. Given that experience and how people are, why should I take the “miracles” of ancient religion seriously? Is it because somebody from thousands of years ago took the time to write it down on a piece of papyrus?

I’m not trying to derail the thread that appears to be an entertaining poll, but part of me thinks there was an agenda from the start.

I ain't faid of no ghost...

Anyway... I am not a believer there is NO empirical evidence for such.  Admittedly though its rather comforting to think they might exist.  It would make for a more fun world.  

Y'know Flick, I'm not gonna get into the discussion on religion and the pros and cons (I'm not qualified or fervent enough either way), but thats a good story.
-Ed

Before I saw them, I was a complete non-believer in all supernatural things. Since I have, I'm now more open to the possibilities of all supernaturals thing existing on some level although I believe them all (fairies, UFOs, ghosts) for the most part to be interdimensional beings that accidentally cross over into our world at certain points and places...

I just see a lack of evidence, but I'm not entirely closed to the possibility. I'd just like to see one scrap of evidence that isn't a ghost story that can't be proven to be either a hoax or a case of something being mistaken for a ghost. You have no idea how many ghost/orb photos and videos just "happen" to look exactly like an insect flying by or landing on the lens...


...you ever wonder what it was like to be one of the ghosts? I mean, you die, wind up haunting your old house, some jerk moves in and starts changing things on you even though you built the place with your own two hands, you try to drop a hint, he calls the Ghostbusters and now you're spending your afterlife in a box.

Flick James, you just described the basis of the Salem Witch Trials.

My take, the human brain is wired to find connections and it is very good at filling in the blanks. What we see as an unbreaking continuity of consciousness is actually an off and on awareness of the world around us. We're never actually fully cognizant of the world around us, much of our time is spent inside our own thought patterns. There are times when we pay full attention to our surroundings, and other times we just sort of nod off of awareness. But here's the kicker, our brains are so good at "filling in the blanks" that we almost never notice. Instead of "reality" we have a story to fill in the gaps.

I realize I'm not explaining myself well, so here's a quick experiment. Watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo

I failed that test.

Anyway, where I'm going with this is that the human brain tends to anthropomorphize the universe; see human motivations in processes that have none. Other people are always our frame of reference, and we tend to shoehorn our observations into that frame.

Like this:

(http://www.freewebby.com/smiley-face/smiley-face.jpg)

Do you see a face there? You would have to inhuman not to, but in truth it's a circle with two dots and a curved line. You can't avoid imparting humanity to the image.

So if you put yourself in a situation where you're receptive to the idea of a ghost, that is, an ex-human, you may see humanity in things that would otherwise be innocuous. Hell, I was in my Arizona room the other night when a cat jumped on my roof and scared the s**t out of me. I figured out what it was right away, but was still paranoid for several minutes.

Now, I'm not saying this what is always happening when people experience the paranormal, but it's a good idea to keep in mind. Combine that with the fact the people embellish their own stories and sometimes just lie (even to themselves), and many stories become a lot less credible.

Also, even the sanest person is from time-to-time subject to biochemical blips. A miniscule amount of the drug LSD is enough to drastically alter anybody's conscious state, and that's a pretty simple compound. Ever had a bad fever? That can make you pretty wonky.

Mofo, you would be an interesting cat to hang with.

I'm familiar with the t-shirt video. An instructor for one of my MBA courses showed that to demonstrate that very thing. I failed it too. I believe something like 90% or more do.

I mentioned in a thread earlier than my long one that the human imagination, the ability to "fill in the blanks," is both a blessing and a curse. It is one of the components that enables both the best and the worst in humanity. In the hands of someone like Albert Schweitzer, we see it's positive potential. In the hands of someone like Tomas de Torquemada, well....

HELLO! SPOILER ALERT!

Oops. It's gone.

This is something I have said many times. Malnutrition, low blood-sugar, and duress are things that can do the same thing. How many "religious revelations" were received in moments of fasting/duress? I would venture to say most of them.

Again, I'm not an atheist. I accept the paranormal, the spiritual. I embrace a spiritual outlook on nature and the universe. It's so incredibly vast on both the macro and micro levels that it makes us humans and our limited grasp of it all incredibly narcissistic to even say we are but a blip. Religious doctrine is, to me, a tiny and insignificant interpretation of that vastness. However, I do not discount the importance of religious thought. Whatever negative one can say about religion, and there is plenty, one also has to acknowledge that religion developed with humanity, and was an important part of the human mind yearning to understand the unknown. So, in it's own way, religion contributed to what would become scientific inquiry. So while I have my problems with religion, I don't hate it. To hate religion would be to hate humanity, as it is too large a component of humanity's development since the Stone Ages.

Source and full story: The Ghosts Of Schatzel Street concernedagain's YouTube Channel (http://www.youtube.com/user/concernedagain)

Partially NSFW because of language.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enVAjZxrD7o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIfZg4-zeP8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8QE-zI3PNo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dmi0os4l3cM

Creepy nonetheless  :bluesad:

Ghosts? Who knows. Dan Aykroyd was in town the other day, though, promoting his new vodka in a crystal skull bottle, and he is a confirmed spiritualist. At his lecture he pointed out that either billions of people throughout history are liars, or the logical explanation is that ghosts exist. So, since Mr. Aykroyd's not a member here, just thought I'd weigh in on his behalf.

The idea that billions of people throughout history are liars is a gross underestimation.

Also if you notice, ghost stories tend to grow in the telling. What begins as, "We heard something upstairs the other night' soon becomes, "We saw a goat-headed being who tried to make us recite the Bible backwards..."

Thank you. As time moves forward, the stories get more and more fantastic. Remember, many people crave attention. If there is somebody who will listen, that's when the embellishment begins. If only two people are listening, then the teller has to juice up the story to get more to listen.

I'm sorry, I can't resist, but every time I read the Mark version of the resurrection story, I have to laugh. According to that version, which is supposedly the oldest of the four gospels and considered by any biblical scholars to be the most genuine, Mary saw a "man" in Jesus' tomb. Not an angel, a man, who tells her that Jesus has risen and isn't there. Mary and the Apostles later saw somebody who claimed to be Jesus, but didn't look anything like him, and they at first (and for good reason) didn't believe it was him. Why would they? Let's consider for a moment that it wasn't actually him. Let us consider for a moment that somebody else was claiming to be Jesus risen, and the Apostles, in their desperate need to believe, and after the guy yelled at them for not believing, they bought it. Then, over time, as the other three gospels were written and passed down and probably embellished further over the first few hundred years of Christianity, the story got embellished.

I'm not saying that I know what really happened. All I'm saying is that it's as likely an explanation as is the notion of it being a risen dead man. I mean, I urge you to read the gospel of Mark sometime, and tell me that it's not more than a bit odd. You have to be a strong adherent of Christian doctrine in order NOT to see it. The first time I read it I thought "wait a second. Am I really seeing this?"

I'm not the first to point out this rather glaring item in the oldest of the gospels. Why would this be? Why would a man risen from the dead appear to be a completely different person? The obvious explanation, if one were a detective or a lawyer or psychologist trained in human behavior, is that these people invested a great deal of themselves into the man Jesus. There was likely a great deal of desperation involved.

Then there is the question of Joseph of Arimathea. He was a wealthy man who was an admirer of Jesus, who is believed to have provided Jesus' tomb. A wealthy man, ay? A man of influence, ay? Ah, the plot thickens. There are Apocryphal gospels that exist, that were kept out of the Bible, that provide more detail about this man. This man talked about the resurrection of Jesus, that it was going to happen, and coincidentally had control over the tomb in which his body was placed. He is supposed to have buried Jesus. So, a man of wealth and influence, who greatly admired Jesus, who provided his tomb and buried him along with Nicodemus. If these accounts are true, then he was the last person to touch or see Jesus' body. Even an amateur detective can see that something frightully suspicious is going on here.

My point here is that there are a number of possible explanations for all of these events. Jesus rising from the dead is just one, and if one observes and respect the laws of nature, has to acknowledge that it is also the most fantastic and improbable out of all of those available. I would say that the notion of a rich and influential man spearheading a great hoax is more likely and plausible.

To tie this back and make it at least somewhat relevant to the discussion, I don't see any remarkable distinctions between what happened with the biblical accounts of Jesus' life and what happens with ghost stories and legends. This does not make faith, nor the belief in the supernatural, wrong in any way. It just makes it all highly suspect given human nature.

Not to be an advocate for Christianity, Flick, but when the "Jesus looked different" account was brought up in the Catholic school I attended, the explanation offered was that what people saw that day was a glorified resurrected body, which was greatly different from the physical bodies seen in this world. Jesus was supposedly in the immortal form that will be assumed on the day of resurrection when the saved rise from their graves on judgement day. Or so they told us....

Maybe. Or maybe it was a completely different person altogether. As blasphemous as that may be to say, it is, at the very least, just as likely. The issue with religious faith is that the notion of it being a resurrected Jesus has to be "explained" and justified through faith. Faith is the only thing that will make it work.

Like I said, that's fine. I never begrudge anybody their faith. When biblical scholars try to defend these beliefs via historical evidence is when it can't be supported. I'm sorry. That's not my fault. But it can't. Yet I see people of faith constantly trying to do it, and they appear foolish when they do. I'm the type of person that is always going to look for alternate explanantions that can be supported by the laws of nature. It's just the deist in me that respects the laws of nature so much that they are enough for me. A resurrected body is not supported by those laws, laws that are "God-made" if you will. So since I respect the natural laws of God, I cannot accept that which is not supported by it, that is, until it can be seen, observed, and justified. Don't get me wrong, I have some esoteric views of the universe that I cannot prove, but I'm also not trying to base a religion and claiming revelation either, so I think I'm in the clear. "Revelation" is something that I view with skepticism and scrutiny. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. For some reason, people who embrace religious doctrine seem to think they are above that.

     Actually, I agree with a lot of what you've said, for the same reason-people try to "interpert" the Scriptures, to make them fit their own agenda.

     BTW, the Bible does mention dinosaurs...if you read the descriptions of Leviathan and Behemoth,  it's plain that what's being described are saurians, and not an elephant and a hippo, as some claim.

     I take no offence. My agenda, if you will, is simply this....I have something which causes me to believe that my eternity is gonna be fantastic, and I want to share that with others.l SHARE, not force upon, dominate, or shout down; I can't make anyone believe anything, nor is that my job.

     Dinosaurs were demons that God wiped out with the Flood? I've never heard that one, the demon part, at least.

Wholeheartedly believe there's somethng to it than just 'imagination'.  I've experienced too much unexplainable phenomena in my lifetime to just chalk it to my innate ability to "imagine."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Irtr0d4Wamk

Not a ghost video, but it'll bury inside your brain and unsettle you if you let it.

If you click through, this person has uploaded a heap of creepy videos involving humanoid creatures and the like.  Kinda off topic from the original post but figure if there's a place to put creepy videos its here!