(Ghosts in) 19 Barry Road East Dulwich

[hazwald]

The lengths people on this forum will go to to dampen down house prices...

[NewWave]

ecarg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hello

> Has anyone heard of or experienced ghosts in

> number 19 Barry Road, East Dulwich?

> I understand it has now been converted into flats

> so these occurrences would have centred around the

> ground floor.

> I lived there before it was converted into flats,

> it was one big house then with a huge back garden.

> Both my brother and myself experienced a number of

> events in the house that cannot be explained. The

> house had a very strange atmosphere.

> I would be very interested if anybody knows

> anything of the history of this house,

> particularly to do with children. Did something

> happen in this house? possibly around the 1900's.

> Thank you.

This sounds fascinating!

Please post back to tell us what you find out.

I believe in ghosts and have seen them.

I do get annoyed when people take the p**s out of others for talking about this kind of thing.

good luck!

[DovertheRoad]

ecarg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> A woman with long black hair walks past your door

> walks downstairs and disappears???

Keep taking the mushrooooms maaaan....

[Blah Blah]

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

A large number of people in the

> nineteenth century and before believed that they

> woke up to find a hag or phantom on their chest -

> in the 20th century and now that has segued into

> beliefs in alien abduction.

The hag or phantom on the chest is a well known experience of sleep paralysis. Many people still suffer from it today and it can be a very frightening experience.

'Sleep paralysis is a feeling of being conscious but unable to move. It occurs when a person passes between stages of wakefulness and sleep. During these transitions, you may be unable to move or speak for a few seconds up to a few minutes. Some people may also feel pressure or a sense of choking.'

There is ongoing neurological research into the condition. Lucid hallucinations, involving people and creatures are a symptom. We still have a lot to learn about the mind. Alternate states of consciousness do exist, even if we don't have an explanation for them. Ghosts may well be another state of alternate consciousness. But given that there are many shared experiences of sightings of particular ghosts, it can't be just dismissed as random hallucination. Before the invention of mangnification, there was no way to see most of the things that are accepted as science now. There is not reason to think we just haven't deveoped the instruments to measure what ghosts are.

[Louisa]

I find interesting how lay people can go on to become experts in other people?s belief systems. Science can only prove what we have been smart enough to learn about the world around us. Anything else, is a mystery yet to be solved. Some research a few years ago went on to prove that consciousness existed beyond the death of the rest of the body.

Those sceptics among us are fully entitled to their beliefs and opinions, and I respect that. But mocking someone else who has a strong belief based on personal belief systems as well as experiences which have offered comfort in times of suffering, are pretty low in my estimation. You wouldn?t go out of your way to mock an organised abrahamic religion in such a cavilier manner, so I?d appreciate people respecting others for their belief systems rather than trying to act like scientists with total and undeniable knowledge of the world around them. Patronising to say the least!

Louisa.

[rendelharris]

Rather well said Louisa, I'm completely atheist and have absolutely no belief in ghosts whatsoever, but it does seem odd that the belief that a chap 2000 years ago was the son of God, or that a chap in the desert 1400 years ago had a direct line to the Almighty, is OK but other non-approved manifestations of the supernatural are unacceptable!

[Blah Blah]

Monotheism though is a relatively recent concept. It is not hard to see why a stage of civilisation who had no understanding yet of what the sun was, the shape of the universe etc, but knew it had power over their crops growing, would invent a sun god.

Humans have a need to understand things. In the absence of science to provide explanation, mankind just made things up instead. This is how we end up with 'Genesis'. The problem is that even science can not break long held beliefs in some cultures. This is how you end up with creationism so easily dismissing the science of genetics.

On the flip side though, most scientific discovery begins with a theory. Religion and science share this starting point. Science then sets out to prove that theory and will drop it if disproved. This is where religion and science part ways. Religion is not able to reassess it's core beliefs in the same way that science is.

For me, relgion has little to do with the scientific pursuit of alternate states of consciousness. Either those alternate states exist, or they don't.

[Alan Medic]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Rather well said Louisa, I'm completely atheist

> and have absolutely no belief in ghosts

> whatsoever, but it does seem odd that the belief

> that a chap 2000 years ago was the son of God, or

> that a chap in the desert 1400 years ago had a

> direct line to the Almighty, is OK but other

> non-approved manifestations of the supernatural

> are unacceptable!

Great thread. I'd love to know if anyone mocking the possible existence of ghosts goes to church or follows a religion.

Anyway,question for Rendel. Why would you call yourself an atheist when you could say agnostic? Surely the former is putting all your eggs in one basket and the latter is a case of just don't know.

On a ghostly note, I have a quite sane brother who says one visited him in his bedroom years ago in Sacramento. He was living with a US cousin who was a cop. He checked the premises and confirmed that no one had entered it from the outside. I don't believe or disbelieve him. He saw something no doubt. But was it real then begs the next question, is anything we see 'real'?

[rendelharris]

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Anyway,question for Rendel. Why would you call

> yourself an atheist when you could say agnostic?

Well I suppose one could - I believe even Professor Dawkins has said he's an agnostic because he can't actually disprove the existence of a deity. Agnosticism just always feels a bit vanilla...I mean no, I can't disprove the existence of a deity, but then neither can I disprove that the universe exists within an enormous marzipan teapot but on balance I don't think it does.

[Penguin68]

'Agnostic' is a scientist's position - a good scientist is 'agnostic' in the sense that he/ she will be happy to see a different hypothesis demonstrated - but when faced with argument with those who operate by 'beliefs' then 'atheist' may be the better language choice. As far as the supernatural is concerned I am an atheist - in the sense that I have no belief in something which transcends in any way the natural world; which is not to say that I have, or ever hope to have, any full understanding of that world. But I am prepared to consider that just because I don't know the physical mechanism doesn't mean that such a physical mechanism doesn't exist. I don't need a super entity to exist to be the explanation of things I don't understand (otherwise I would require a god of quantum mechanics - and indeed calculus!). As far as a god or gods is/ are concerned, in the words of Pierre-Simon Laplace 'I have no need of that hypothesis'.

[Sue]

NewWave Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I do get annoyed when people take the p**s out of

> others for talking about this kind of thing.

So do I.

I imagine if the same people could only see in black and white, they would claim that there was no colour, and anybody who said they could see in colour was talking nonsense.

Some people are more sensitive than others.

[FJDGoose]

El Presidente Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Ghosts do not exist.

>

> *Thread closed*

Oh! So you have conclusive proof?

[JohnL]

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rendelharris Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Rather well said Louisa, I'm completely atheist

> > and have absolutely no belief in ghosts

> > whatsoever, but it does seem odd that the

> belief

> > that a chap 2000 years ago was the son of God,

> or

> > that a chap in the desert 1400 years ago had a

> > direct line to the Almighty, is OK but other

> > non-approved manifestations of the supernatural

> > are unacceptable!

>

> Great thread. I'd love to know if anyone mocking

> the possible existence of ghosts goes to church or

> follows a religion.

> Anyway,question for Rendel. Why would you call

> yourself an atheist when you could say agnostic?

> Surely the former is putting all your eggs in one

> basket and the latter is a case of just don't

> know.

>

> On a ghostly note, I have a quite sane brother who

> says one visited him in his bedroom years ago in

> Sacramento. He was living with a US cousin who was

> a cop. He checked the premises and confirmed that

> no one had entered it from the outside. I don't

> believe or disbelieve him. He saw something no

> doubt. But was it real then begs the next

> question, is anything we see 'real'?

I prefer multiple Gods bitching at each other all day if I have to choose.

They may even have a forum.

[ecarg]

-- moved topic --

[micromacromonkey]

Louisa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I find interesting how lay people can go on to

> become experts in other people?s belief systems.

> Science can only prove what we have been smart

> enough to learn about the world around us.

> Anything else, is a mystery yet to be solved. Some

> research a few years ago went on to prove that

> consciousness existed beyond the death of the rest

> of the body.

>

> Those sceptics among us are fully entitled to

> their beliefs and opinions, and I respect that.

> But mocking someone else who has a strong belief

> based on personal belief systems as well as

> experiences which have offered comfort in times of

> suffering, are pretty low in my estimation. You

> wouldn?t go out of your way to mock an organised

> abrahamic religion in such a cavilier manner, so

> I?d appreciate people respecting others for their

> belief systems rather than trying to act like

> scientists with total and undeniable knowledge of

> the world around them. Patronising to say the

> least!

>

> Louisa.

God in the gaps:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

[micromacromonkey]

micromacromonkey Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Louisa Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I find interesting how lay people can go on to

> > become experts in other people?s belief

> systems.

> > Science can only prove what we have been smart

> > enough to learn about the world around us.

> > Anything else, is a mystery yet to be solved

> > ...

>

> God in the gaps:

>

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

Or, more accurately. the argument from ignorance fallacy (ignorance in this case doesn't mean stupidity but rather lack of knowledge)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

[Calsug]

We lived in a 300 year old house and had guest to stay one weekend, the next day she claimed to have seen a small boy sitting on her bed in the middle of the night... we did some research and it turns out a child chimney sweep had died in her room cleaning the chimney - there are some things you can't explain and that was one of those things.

[Mick Mac]

Calsug Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> We lived in a 300 year old house and had guest to

> stay one weekend, the next day she claimed to have

> seen a small boy sitting on her bed in the middle

> of the night... we did some research and it turns

> out a child chimney sweep had died in her room

> cleaning the chimney - there are some things you

> can't explain and that was one of those things.

I can - don't invite her again.

[fishbiscuits]

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Anyway,question for Rendel. Why would you call

> yourself an atheist when you could say agnostic?

> Surely the former is putting all your eggs in one

> basket and the latter is a case of just don't know.

Sorry, I know you didn't say "question for fishbiscuits", but I have an interest in the subject. There's nothing wrong with putting all your eggs in one basket if you have a strong belief. Many people - myself included - believe that the harm religion causes in this world vastly outweighs the good. Perhaps if more people stood up and said "seriously, there is no god, it's all just made up fairytales" then we might be able to start leaving all this nonsense behind us and move forwards as a civilisation.

Anyway, you could just as easily ask the question of a theist. "You can't prove that your god exists, so why can't you just call yourself an agnostic"? Except that it would do no good... most religious people probably lack either the desire or capacity to really critically examine their beliefs.

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well I suppose one could - I believe even

> Professor Dawkins has said he's an agnostic

> because he can't actually disprove the existence of a deity.

I do recall him saying that he cannot be 100% sure that god doesn't exist. But that's an acknowledgement that it's almost impossible to disprove a fictional phenomenon - especially when it is claimed that it conveniently functions outside and beyond the known parameters of physics! We can't prove that Father Christmas or the Loch Ness Monster don't exist either. Yet we don't sit on the fence about those. So why sit on the fence about god? Or ghosts, for that matter.