Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It may also be that she has no particular desire to believe in a deity, yet thinks ghosts are very interesting. People who want to believe in something often manage to convince themselves that it is not only plausible, but likely or even certain.
Quite possibly. The atheist I mentioned who enjoys ghost hunts probably just likes the entertainment value more than anything. It doesn't need to be more complicated than that.
I know at least one atheist who enjoys ghost hunts as a form of entertainment.
Entertainment is one thing, but (to use the example of astrology) when people go beyond just reading their horoscope in the paper and proceed to blame all of their ills on Mercury being rectocranially inverted in Uranus -- or whatever -- then that's when, IMHO, it stops being fun and starts being counterproductive. Why bother trying to improve your circumstances when the infinitesemal gravitational pull exerted by a planet tens of millions of miles away is suddenly coming from a slightly different angle and ruining your whole day?
And yet I have friends who are aggressively atheist (indeed, anti-Christian) who get VERY offended when I diss astrology.
On what basis do you "diss" astrology?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pch1013
Entertainment is one thing, but (to use the example of astrology) when people go beyond just reading their horoscope in the paper and proceed to blame all of their ills on Mercury being rectocranially inverted in Uranus -- or whatever -- then that's when, IMHO, it stops being fun and starts being counterproductive.
That is a very valid criticism. In fact, you may criticize horoscopes in the paper as nothing but garbage (since that is what they are). Those who are horoscopes are way too generic to be taken seriously.
Supporting in part...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mictlantecuhtli
My mother is an atheist, and absolutely convinced that ghosts exist.
So am I.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander
Now a ghost...this requires belief in a state of existence which by natural law, cannot happen.
Your position is grotesquely flawed.
Ghosts require neither a god nor a soul, nor an afterlife. There's nothing supernatural about ghosts either.
For all you know, they could be some manifestation of electromagnetic energy. Why? I don't know, but until someone decides to seriously investigate the matter, you can't rule out the possibility that it is nothing more than electromagnetic energy.
Sure, we know quite a bit about electromagnetic energy, but we don't know everything about it, and we still haven't figured out how to manipulate electromagnetic energy fully in all of its forms, because if you did, then you wouldn't need combustion engines (or gasoline).
That is a very valid criticism. In fact, you may criticize horoscopes in the paper as nothing but garbage (since that is what they are). Those who are horoscopes are way too generic to be taken seriously.
Supporting in part...
Mircea
So am I.
Your position is grotesquely flawed.
Ghosts require neither a god nor a soul, nor an afterlife. There's nothing supernatural about ghosts either.
For all you know, they could be some manifestation of electromagnetic energy. Why? I don't know, but until someone decides to seriously investigate the matter, you can't rule out the possibility that it is nothing more than electromagnetic energy.
Sure, we know quite a bit about electromagnetic energy, but we don't know everything about it, and we still haven't figured out how to manipulate electromagnetic energy fully in all of its forms, because if you did, then you wouldn't need combustion engines (or gasoline).
Scientifically...
Mircea
You should take your complaint up with the dictionary writers, who contrary to your above assertion, define ghost as:
Quote:
ghost
[gohst] Show IPA
noun
1.
the soul of a dead person, a disembodied spirit imagined, usually as a vague, shadowy or evanescent form, as wandering among or haunting living persons.
Now, had I used the phrase "ghostly apparition", there might be some justice to your hyperbolic "grotesquely flawed" characterization of my post. In that I wrote "ghost" which the dictionary thinks is supposed to be the soul of a dead person, and that the popular understanding of "ghost" is the same, your contribution is the flawed one. How grossly I'll let the audience decide.
Last edited by Grandstander; 12-12-2012 at 06:06 PM..
That is a very valid criticism. In fact, you may criticize horoscopes in the paper as nothing but garbage (since that is what they are). Those who are horoscopes are way too generic to be taken seriously.
Supporting in part...
Mircea
So am I.
Your position is grotesquely flawed.
Ghosts require neither a god nor a soul, nor an afterlife. There's nothing supernatural about ghosts either.
For all you know, they could be some manifestation of electromagnetic energy. Why? I don't know, but until someone decides to seriously investigate the matter, you can't rule out the possibility that it is nothing more than electromagnetic energy.
Sure, we know quite a bit about electromagnetic energy, but we don't know everything about it, and we still haven't figured out how to manipulate electromagnetic energy fully in all of its forms, because if you did, then you wouldn't need combustion engines (or gasoline).
Scientifically...
Mircea
This is one of the most "grotesquely flawed" posts I've ever read. Electromagnetic energy? Really? Electrical engineers around the world would laugh in your face about that one.
This is one of the most "grotesquely flawed" posts I've ever read. Electromagnetic energy? Really? Electrical engineers around the world would laugh in your face about that one.
Mircea is a remarkable combination of prolific verbosity and raging, narcissistic pompousness. I find his posts among the more entertaining -- undoubtedly, in a way completely unintended -- than those of almost any other poster.
Yes, I'm skeptical of lots of things, particularly ghost and ufo sightings. And let me tell you, a lot of people in the Unexplained Mysteries and Paranormal forum do NOT like that.
I know at least one atheist who enjoys ghost hunts as a form of entertainment. I think he's open to the possibility of discarnate entities but even he can't explain his interest. I know at least one other atheist who is also open to such possibilities who would nevertheless consider themselves a skeptic and in particular this person has never been religious and has never understood the appeal of religion.
I would have to say that people on all sides of these issues can be very compartmentalized in how they regard specific things so you definitely can't make any generalizations. Canonical examples on the theist side include highly capable and accomplished scientists who are nevertheless theists.
As far as dismissing everything that can't be empirically proven right now beyond any shadow of doubt as "twinkle ding dong BS", I don't think you can go very wrong with such a default, but at the same time, I have to believe that it causes you to miss out on a few discoveries now and then. For example there is often disagreement in mainstream medicine about the validity of some treatments (e.g., treating chronic Lyme Disease with long-term antibiotics or regarding CFS/ME sufferers as something other than malingerers and hypochondriacs) but I know of people who had dramatic success working with doctors who hold to minority opinions on those matters. The guy who discovered Heliobactor Pylori as the cause of most stomach ulcers was ridiculed for years before he was lauded for his brilliance, because after all, "everyone knows" ulcers are caused by stress (and some older doctors who don't keep up with things still cling to this idea).
As the old saying goes, all new discoveries are first ridiculed, then grudgingly accepted, then regarded as having been self-evident all along. So it pays to keep an open mind, not just so much that your brains leak out ;-)
I dismiss claims that can't be verified, but it doesn't mean I don't look at what's being presented, I may even be amused by it. I'd never just take some random persons word for it though - I'd have to research the subject myself, then dismiss it if need be (and I'm certainly inclined to ignore the paranormal, regardless of it's form). As a skeptic, it's in my nature to not automatically believe what people tell me just because they believe it without supportive evidence. Perhaps your atheist friend (and some atheist in general) are just not as skeptical as I am so it leaves them open to the entertainment aspect that the paranormal subjects offer. It still seems rather inconsistent to be skeptical of god and religion but not of magical beings/aliens/psychics/etc.
I can see how the medical community would be resistant to alternative causes for ulcers in the past (or the present as mentioned), because it's natural for people to resist change/alternative ideas, especially as we get older. But I'm talking about being skeptical of baseless claims for profit (as I mentioned in a previous post, products being pushed by exaggerated claims such as diet pills, miracle anti-wrinkle creams, etc.). I brought that up, because it's an example how skeptical I am of things unproven, in general. But I digress...
This is one of the most "grotesquely flawed" posts I've ever read. Electromagnetic energy? Really? Electrical engineers around the world would laugh in your face about that one.
While some electrical engineers may specifically study electromagnetic fields beyond an introductory course, electromagnetic energy is generally studied by physicists and astronomers as it tends to fall into the quantum physics catagory. And I highly doubt that even at advanced levels of study the possibility of ghosts will be discussed in the classroom. On the flipside, there are some theories in quantum physics that could very well be used to explain something such as ghosts. Granted, this explanation would exist on paper only, but it would use the same math and logic and proof that is used to show how a plane can fly or how a plant can grow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mommabear2
It still seems rather inconsistent to be skeptical of god and religion but not of magical beings/aliens/psychics/etc.
I can see how the medical community would be resistant to alternative causes for ulcers in the past (or the present as mentioned), because it's natural for people to resist change/alternative ideas, especially as we get older. But I'm talking about being skeptical of baseless claims for profit (as I mentioned in a previous post, products being pushed by exaggerated claims such as diet pills, miracle anti-wrinkle creams, etc.). I brought that up, because it's an example how skeptical I am of things unproven, in general. But I digress...
Your idea to keep an open mind is noted.
The sentence in bold, which is the premise of the OP, is flawed. For one, not everyone who is atheist is atheist because of skepticism. To go along with the dictionary definition of...skeptic...a skeptic is one who questions...And atheist do not question whether deities exist, most flat out claim the answer is a resounding no. No questioning required. Agnostics are questioning, not atheists. Second, the sentence in bold also assumes that if one believes in a deity, then one must also believe in astrology, UFOs, etc. Perhaps there are some Religions that are more believing of this stuff, but I can say without a doubt the most ardent disbelievers I know of when it comes to paranormal phenomenon are Christians and Jews. The majority of those that I know who are into the "weird stuff" are all self-proclaimed atheists. Many of which I spent over a decade listening to Art Bell with (pre-Coast-to-Coast).
Atheists come from all backgrounds and the only thing we really have in common is our disbelief in deities.
As for alternative medicine, you should realize that synthesized drugs are highly modeled after plant sources.
Its kinda interesting to see "atheists" and "skeptics" (self-anointed) parading a sort of deterministic, materialist (physicalist) physics that went out of vogue among real scientists and most philosophers several generations ago.
It is correct to require strong evidence for unusual claims. Ghosts, undiscovered species of hominid wandering our forests, dragons in our lakes, regressed memories of past lives, and all the usual claims of the spiritualist, the fortune teller and the soothsayer, are fairly readily disregarded, without resort to assertions that they are false because of physics. Lord knows, if we believed everything that is claimed, we would be in a mess.
Relativity persuaded us that the materialists, of the Democritus sort, had it wrong -- that stuff does exist other than matter and space. Indeed, we know that matter is a sort of illusion, being in fact a particularly compressed sort of the stuff physicists now call "energy." And what is energy? Well, that depends. Sometimes it is just potential to do work, sitting there on the edge of a precipice. Other times it is some sort of particulate stuff that may or may not have mass (react to gravity and demonstrate inertia) depending on what sort of particle it is (photons don't have mass but are particles, electrons do have mass).
In the end, however, energy is really waves -- disturbances that self-propagate -- little processes. And what medium do these waves propagate themselves in -- how do the electromagnetic waves get from the sun to the earth through the vacuum of space? Well, they sort-of wave space-time itself (if they have mass) and, if they don't have mass (are photons), what you have is an electric wave propagating in a magnetic field and a magnetic wave propagating in an electric field, each pushing the other along.
I haven't even gotten to the probabilistic nature of all this, and I'm tired, so I will get to the point -- all this is no basis for rejecting anything mystical or spiritual. It is all mystical and spiritual enough on its own.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
