Ghosts

[eek MD]

I've always been a little bit curious about this.

Can you be an atheist and believe in ghosts? Or does believing in "spirits" assume that you believe a god?

I personally don't believe in ghosts, because i've never seen one. Many people claim that they have seen them. (Then again, i guess people claim to have seen god as well *shrug*) Just curious about your views. :)

[Beetwasher]

1. I'd Say No

I'd say you'd be hard pressed to find an athiest who believes in ghosts. Many (most?) atheists are also pretty skeptical about paranormal claims.

[arwalden]

2. Of Course You're Correct. -- However...

there have been a few folks around here--subsequently banned--who have claimed to be atheist and who "didn't deny the possibility of the existence of detectable spiritual energies" (or similarly worded nonsense).

Whenever I see someone like that, I'm immediately suspicious. (Know what I mean?)

[Arianrhod]

44. I have been told many times,

including on this very forum, that because I'm willing to investigate religious dogmas and have an open attitude towards the possibility that a god might exist, that I cannot be an atheist.

I got tired of that carousel, and have opted instead to adopt no label at all. People can call me whatever makes them comfortable.

I've also stopped talking about "what I believe". I don't believe anything at all. I know a few facts, I've made some possible connections and correlations between facts, and I enjoy speculating about what other facts might be out there. But if there are no facts to back a supposition up, I assume that the supposition is not true, unless and until some facts become uncovered that support it.

[DavidDvorkin]

3. "Believe", no

Accept the possibility of, yes.

There's no contradiction. Weak atheism accepts the possibility of anything existing, no matter how silly, but demands proof. Ghosts might exist, leprechaums might exist, God might exist, the Greek gods might exist, and so on. But there's no reason to think that any of them do.

[BiggJawn]

4. I wouldn't call that "weak" Atheism...

Healthy skeptiscm perhaps...

I'm open to the possibility of ANYTHING, even the Loch Ness Monster. But before you get me to say "OK, I believe it" you'd better be able to PROVE it to me, and not just throw "prove it ISN"T so" in my face.

"Weak" Atheism brings to mind someone who's got Pascal's Wager in their back pocket, ready to yell out "Jesus SAVE me!" at the last minute before they die so they can go to "Heaven" if it turns out that it exists.

[DavidDvorkin]

5. "Strong" and "weak" atheism are standard terms

Length description and discussion here:

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm

[Phentex]

7. Those definitions blur the line between agnostic and atheist...

and then the article seems to claim that most atheists are part weak and part strong.

Why does a ghost have to be spiritual? If I believe in the loch ness monster, does that mean I believe in god?

Why do we need the terms weak and strong atheist? They both deny the existence of any gods. I think a truly weak atheist is just another term for an agnostic.

[DavidDvorkin]

10. No, because

an agnostic tends to give a special status to the god he was brought up to believe in.

[Phentex]

13. That's your definition of an agnostic?

[DavidDvorkin]

18. No, that's my characterization of most of them.

[beam me up scottie]

11. Um, a ghost by definition is spiritual. And atheists do NOT deny

"the existence of any gods".

That's a deliberately false definition propagated by theists who are threatened by atheism.

How can one deny the existence of something that cannot be defined?

If you have never heard about purple and chartreuse polka-dotted snuffalumpaguses from the planet Xqtpwvcvdgsdf in the 5th dimension, do you deny their existence?

There are many rancorous debates over the definition of atheism, with quite a few theists insisting that atheism should be defined in a very narrow sense: the denial of the existence of any gods. When theists simply assume that this is what atheism is, there can be a lot of miscommunication and misunderstanding in their discussions and debates with atheists.
***
Unfortunately, not every person entering such discussions does so with intellectual honesty. Thus, another reason often seen for insisting that only the narrow sense of atheism is relevant is that it allows the theist to avoid shouldering the principal burden of proof. You see, if atheism is simply the absence of a belief in any gods, then the burden of proof lies solely with the theist. If the theist cannot demonstrate that their belief is reasonable and justified, then atheism is automatically credible and reasonable.

There is also a tendency among some theists to make the error of focusing only on the specific god in which they believe, failing to recognize the fact that atheists don’t focus on that god. Atheism has to involve all gods, not simply one god — and an atheist can often approach different gods in different ways, depending upon what is necessitated by the nature of the god in question.

Thus, when someone claims that a person is an atheist because they “deny the existence of God,” we can start to see some of the errors and misunderstandings that statement involves. First, the term “God” hasn’t been defined, so what the atheist thinks of it cannot be automatically assumed. The theist cannot simply assert that whatever they have in mind must also be something which the atheist has in mind. Second, it is not true that whatever this god turns out to be, the atheist must automatically deny it. This concept might turn out to be too incoherent to justify either belief or denial.

from Defining Atheism by Austin Cline
http://atheism.about.com

[Phentex]

12. Why do we need to define something that does not exist?

I don't believe in the concept of god(s).

And are you saying THIS is true or not?:

"You see, if atheism is simply the absence of a belief in any gods, then the burden of proof lies solely with the theist. If the theist cannot demonstrate that their belief is reasonable and justified, then atheism is automatically credible and reasonable."

AND if I've "have never heard about purple and chartreuse polka-dotted snuffalumpaguses from the planet Xqtpwvcvdgsdf in the 5th dimension" I don't think I'd spend any time thinking about them unless someone *asked* me about them. Now, if you DID ask me about them, I certainly would not assume they existed because some god made them exist. The idea of a god would not enter my mind. I would probably want to know more about the planet.

[beam me up scottie]

15. "When did you stop beating your wife?"

"Why do we need to define something that does not exist?"

Do you have a degree in circular reasoning?

Did you even read my post?

YOU claim you know for a fact that no gods exists.
That does not make you an atheist.

If gods cannot be defined, you cannot actively disbelieve in them.

I suggest you do your homework before arguing the theist' POV in this group.

You don't get a faith-based pass absolving you from using reason and logic to prove a point.

[Phentex]

23. I wouldn't dream of arguing the theist POV...

and don't see how I could since I am not a theist!

"faith-based pass"???? I don't want one! Where the hell does THAT come from?

I guess I don't understand YOUR definition for atheist. What is it?

[beam me up scottie]

25. Then why are you using their definition of atheism ?

Since you cannot possibly have knowledge of all gods, how are you able to deny the existence of all gods?

atheism is simply the absence of a belief in any gods

[Phentex]

26. it was really just the very basic term for it from the dictionary....

I had no idea the theists coined it and that's what they were using. I wouldn't in a million years purposely use their argument. Seriously.

[beam me up scottie]

27. Man, I'm sorry I jumped

your post like that.

I thought you were a wayward believer come here to educate us.

You would not believe how many times we've gone around on this issue with the same believers. It gets so frustrating I'm ready to chew nails.:mad:

I never knew the terminology issue was so complex either until I ran into some aggressive DU theists.

I noticed how the believers were begging the question and framing the argument whenever the subject of atheism came up.

So I started doing some research and found one way to take down their argument was to not allow them to assume god exists.

There's a lot of excellent information available about this subject on the net.

Well, sorry again for my tone and I'm glad you're on our side!:toast:

[Phentex]

29. I've posted here for a while....

and I have to say there's nothing scarier than having another atheist think you're not. It's like being mistaken for a repug only worse. It's like someone congratulating you on your pregnancy and you're not pregnant. :yoiks:

[beam me up scottie]

30. BWA!

Hopefully we strike that much fear in the hearts of believers!

Talk about friendly fire ...

After our dear *cough*friend*cough* got ts'd, we got a little paranoid.

Atheists are much more diversified than believers, and dogma free.

I don't believe in the supernatural myself, but I'm not going to tell someone who is that they're not part of the club.

[Phentex]

14. Oh, and....

What does being a spirit have to do with god?

[beam me up scottie]

16. WHERE did I post that? SHOW me.

Why does a ghost have to be spiritual?

You asked why ghosts needed to be spiritual, I answered your question.

Since that went over your head, here's an easy definition of the word from Brainy Dictionary:

definition of ghost Ghost

The spirit; the soul of man.

The disembodied soul; the soul or spirit of a deceased person; a spirit appearing after death; an apparition; a specter.

Any faint shadowy semblance; an unsubstantial image; a phantom; a glimmering; as, not a ghost of a chance; the ghost of an idea.

A false image formed in a telescope by reflection from the surfaces of one or more lenses.

To die; to expire.

To appear to or haunt in the form of an apparition.

Don't play woo woo games in this group, their tricks don't work in here.

[Phentex]

22. "a ghost by definition is spiritual"

to which I ask, so? What does being "spriritaul" have to do with a god? I'm trying to see your link.

[beam me up scottie]

24. I didn't link the two.

I merely answered your question about the spirituality of ghosts.

[BiggJawn]

19. A "Strong" Atheist is a FOOL.

"Deny the existence of at least SOME gods..."

OK, so how come I've never heard of the earth-shattering proofs to support this denial?
I can't imagine a weaker position to take in a "Theological debate" than to state that some gods DEFINITELY do NOT exist.

That fellow gave Zeuss and Apollo as examples of gods that do not exist. He also forgot to show his proofs for the non-existence of those two. What is the PROOF that Zeus and Apollo don't exist? Why, ask any Christian you happen to see, what's the best tuna...Uh, sorry, got sidetracked there, anyway, ASK any Christian if Zeus and Apollo don't exist. I'm sure they'll heartily agree with you, Of COURSE Zeus and Apollo don't exist! Only JEHOVAH is the only God. Why? Because Jehovah SAID so.(just like in "kissing Hank's Ass")

I stand by my original post. If you were to say to most people "I'm a Weak Atheist" I'm quite sure they'd be thinking "Oh, HO! Not too terribly sure there ISN'T a God, eh?"

BTW, no offense meant, but going to "About-Dot-Com" for information on something as deep as Atheism is about like reading the box a disposable camera came in and expecting to kick Ansel Adams' ass...

[DavidDvorkin]

20. I used About because it was a reasonable summary

You can find similar definitions of strong and weak atheism on atheist sites.

The terminology is nothing new. If some misinterpret it, well, that's life. Doesn't change the fact that the terminology has been around for a while and is widely accepted, or that it's fairly useful.

[BiggJawn]

21. OK, then I'll agree to disagree.

" Doesn't change the fact that the terminology has been around for a while and is widely accepted, or that it's fairly useful."

The idea that Atheists "Worship Satan" has "been around for a while and is widely accepted", too. Right?

I don't find it useful in the least.

[DavidDvorkin]

28. The "strong" and "weak" terminology

That's what I was referring to. That's what I posted about.

[YankeyMCC]

34. Strong and weak Atheism

Are terms used by other atheist organizations and thinkers. You're right that people shouldn't just read an about.com article and consider themselves well versed or expert. But I'm just pointing out these terms I think are valid terms, and not taking any position on what we said about them.

I first saw them on the positive atheism web site: http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/faq1111.htm

[BiggJawn]

38. Well, I don't LIKE them!

Guess I have to resign my membership in the He-Man God-Doubter's club now, eh?

To my way of thinking, to self-identify as a "weak" Atheist is just ASKING the myth-believers to pile on you with their testimonies and prosletyzing, since their definition of the term "weak" means "Not strong, liable to change their mind", in other words "Ripe to hear the WORD of GAWD!"...

There's people out here who think "Brights" is a valid term, too, but I'm not one of them.

[beam me up scottie]

39. .

:rofl:

Hand in your rubber chicken and leave your E.A.C. badge with the desk sergeant.

But remember, you are still sworn to secrecy for ever and ever and ever.





and ever.

[BiggJawn]

40. No! Not secrecy!

I was going to write a tell-all book and get my own late-night infomercial, "John Edward is a Big Fat Rip-Off"

[beam me up scottie]

42. WOW, that could be dangerous.

OR, it could be another episode of "When Woo Woos Attack!"

You'd definitely have to go on the witness protection program.

[YankeyMCC]

41. Well I refuse to allow them to define it for me

if they are so silly as to not listen to what it means then they aren't worth my time to discuss it with. ;)

[beam me up scottie]

43. I haven't learned that yet.

I swear not a day goes by that I don't find myself challenging the theist labels.

Hey, we don't go around defining their religion for them.


...although, that could be fun and exciting.

[Zhade]

6. Your words reflect my own thoughts.

I am not so arrogant as to think that humans know everything about the universe at this point and that nothing "supernatural" might later be found to be true and based on natural laws we haven't discovered yet.

Likewise, I am not naive enough to simply believe such things to exist or be true without proof.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. One thing an atheist believer in ghosts would need to explain

is why ghosts are apparently roughly bound by the laws of gravity and motion (they stay approximately fixed near a place on the Earth's surface), but at the same time are not actual matter. And they have occasional effects on the real world, but then spend long periods being undetectable.

[salvorhardin]

17. Another thing that would probably need explaining

is why so many reported ghosts are wearing clothes. Spectral clothing?

[Taxloss]

9. Well, it's a funny old question.

Of course, the unquiet spirits of the dead do not walk the earth, holding their heads under their arms and moaning.

But ... there are entirely sound scientific bases for ghost sightings. For a start, night terrors, something I used to suffer from, could probably explain a great many sightings; similar psychological anomalies would probably help explain the majority of the rest.

The remainder - ignoring the cranks and attention-seekers, and eliminating false positives from lighting, relfections, marsh gas etc - open up a couple of unlikely but tantalizing prospects.

For a start, we live on a spinning ball of magnetised iron. It's possible the planet might in some circumstance act like a video tape and take some sort of impression from activity on the surface - extremely unlikely, but a slender possibility. Secondy, there's the quantum level. Simply by existing, we alter the universe on a fundamental level. There may be an echo we don't understand.

The latter two are long shots. VERY long shots.

[Modem Butterfly]

31. There's no such thing as souls or spirits or ghosts

Call me a materialist if you must, but I don't put much weight in the existance of the supernatural. Just about every ghost, ghoul, goblin, long-leggedy beastie and/or boogie man under the bed has a natural cause and explanation. For example, our last house was said to be haunted. It had all sorts of cold spots and many interesting sounds. The place was nearly 100 years old and needed a new roof, which took care of the cold spots. Most of the strange sounds were caused by the enormous converted-coal furnace in the basement that, when started up, sounded like someone banging on the ductwork with a lead pipe. And the other sounds were caused by various critters.

[shrike]

32. My husband the agnostic has had ghostly experiences

And I, the believer, have had none. Go figure.

OTOH, he's not sure what he saw, or experienced, and his experiences are pretty specific. He's a scientific type and has pondered the natural causes (i.e., electromagnetic whatever.) He doesn't drink, take mind-altering drugs and never attends church. He calls himself an agnostic or deist (on his good days) and doesn't believe in an afterlife. However, he sees himself as a man open to possibilities and literally anything can exist -- but until it is proven or unproven, no one knows for sure.

Postscript: An atheist relative of mine, who recently recovered from a life-threatening accident, told he remembers leaving his body and traveling around the hospital. Apparently the things and people he says he witnessed checked out. He's still an atheist, still doesn't believe in a soul or an afterlife, but found the experience very interesting. AJust one more mystery of existence, he said.

[beam me up scottie]

33. Ahh, no deathbed conversions for your

relative.
There goes another myth about atheists!
Thanks.

[shrike]

45. Yeah, he's the last person I'd expect to have an NDE

He's convinced the experience was real -- not a dream or hallucination. He just refuses to speculate on what it all means.

[beam me up scottie]

46. That's pretty interesting considering

people who are grounded in reality like that usually wouldn't talk about having that kind of experience.

[onager]

47. NDE is not much of a mystery anymore...

I'd point you to a specific link but I'm lazy and have limited time right now.

However, if you go over to the Showtime website and look up Penn & Teller's "Bullshit!" show, you can read about a fascinating program they did on Near Death Experiences. (Or you could just Google and skip the W**-W** pages about NDE.)

As it turns out, the phenomena associated with NDE exactly matches what happens to jet fighter pilots during training, when they are hurled around on a giant centrifuge at high speeds.

The pilot trainees experienced the same things reported as NDE's: moving thru a tunnel toward a bright light, seeing the faces of dead relatives, and the feeling of being out of your own body watching what is happening to it.

Scientists who are a lot smarter than me can explain why the traumas and their effects are similar--blood deprivation to the brain, etc.

[shrike]

49. I've seen and read about NDEs

There is some difference of opinion, though. Kind of depends on who's presenting the material.

For example, I saw a pilot interviewed who'd experienced both NDE and the effects of training. He said they were very different and he really wouldn't compare the two. Also, there's the matter of "bad" NDEs, which do not match the centrifuge experience. They do happen; I've met people who've experienced them. What's up with them? Different brain chemicals involved, perhaps?

As I said in the above post, my relative is still very much an atheist. However, the whole out-of-body experience mystifies him. It didn't involve bright lights or seeing dead relatives; rather, he simply left his body and "floated" (the best term I can use) around the hospital. However, he's content to let it all remain a mystery and go on with his life.

I read another account by a physician and scientist (and an obvious non-believer) who also reported out-of-body experience: no light, no dead relatives; he, too, piloted his way around the hospital.

I would say there is a good deal of mystery left to the NDE. As well as research to be done.

[YankeyMCC]

35. Not as ghosts are traditionally thought of

I think a clear thinking atheist would have to explain or rather define exactly what they mean by a ghost and how it fits into the rational world and the laws of physics etc...

But once you describe a phenomena like that it's no longer in the realm of "supernatural" or "mystical" and not what most theists would think of as a ghost in the traditional sense.

Of course we're only human and as such we don't always think clearly or logically about everything. I'm sure there are people who consider themselves atheists but still have a quirk or two concerning supernatural ideas...wishing people luck...wearing a lucky shirt for a game...scared of the dark... doesn't mean they aren't atheist if they a still clear about the idea of a god it just means their human nature has manifested in them in the form of a little inconsistency of thought on similar ideas such as a ghost.

I'm sure when I closely examine some of my own decisions and actions I could find silliness or superstition in some cases. I like to think they are few and far between though :)

[Book Lover]

36. I can't speak for anyone but myself

But I say no, once you're dead, you're dead.

[GOPFighter]

37. It depends

It depends on the definition of a ghost. In the traditional sense, a ghost is the spirit of a dead person. Can a person have a spirit unless there is a god? Hmmm, I guess it's possible.

OTOH there are scientists who seriously believe there are other dimensions rather than the one we are aware of. They theorize we exist in more than this dimension (this was the feature article in Discover Magazine awhile back. I didn't comprehend the logic or the science). Could our selves in another dimension be our "ghost"? Can a person die in our dimension and continue to exist in another dimension?

[onager]

48. The best explanation I've heard for ghosts...

Once I was on a tour of the Tower Of London. The "Yeoman Warders" who are tour guides tend to be a pretty hard-headed bunch...not surprising, since by law they must be retired Warrant Officers from one of the British military services.

The Yeoman Warder leading our tour was a real character. While he was telling us about the various people who died in the Tower, he observed:

"Some people say London is the most haunted city on Earth."

After a properly dramatic pause to let that sink in, he added:

"But personally, I think that's just because Londoners are the biggest liars on Earth."

That works for me in explaining most hauntings, wherever they happen on Earth.

(When a little kid wandered toward one of the famous ill-tempered Tower ravens, the tour guide barked in a voice like a drill sergeant: "Try to pet that thing, sonny, and your friends will be calling you 'Captain Hook.'")