atheism and ghosts.

Hypothetical question: An atheist witnesses first hand what he/she can only conclude is a non-corporeal supernatural being (after exhausting all reasonable possibilities and explanations, of course). How does he/she reconcile this with his/her beliefs? Is it even possible to reconcile atheism with a first hand experience of a supernatural being?

 

You answered your own question.
After "exhausting all reasonable possibilities and explanations" the only logical conclusion any reasonable person could arrive at is that they saw a ghost. At this point comes either acceptance of the supernatural, or an attempt to understand what happened and understand it as a previously unknown natural occurrence.

If you asked me what the AVERAGE atheist would do, I'd say they would either attempt to explain away the occurrence, or attribute it to some physiological hiccup within the brain or sense organs. That is to say, they would attempt to assimilate the experience within their existing framework for understanding existence, which is what the majority of humanity would do.

 

I actually know someone that has come upon this "dilema". He said he just couldn't really accept even the concept of God, and was sort of "happy or content" with this ideation.

Yet, well into adulthood he came upon a situation to "see a ghost", encounter things he couldn't explain, and this did cause him some pause...I'll say.

Experiencing this made him begin to re-evaluate his what he thought were definite conclusions as to God, an afterlife, etc. Which, come to think of it, who better than to experience a glimpse of "the other side". Of course, I believe...and I found it quite interesting (and wonderful) that my friend went through this "haunting".

There are more things, Horatio...:sultan:

 

Lacking critical thinking skills is forgivable...repeatedly misquoting Shakespeare is not.

 

How exactly do you conclude it's a supernatural being? And how would you define "supernatural"? Does a "ghost" really have to be "supernatural"? Or could it be the most common thing?

It is this line of thinking that always leads to some kind or the other of religion. You can't explain it, so there must be a higher entity behind it. Then a whole story is being made up from zilch to create a framework in order to explain where everything comes from and where it will eventually go.

And if you don't believe, you'll go straight to hell.

Sorry. No.

 

I owe you rep.

When we are faced with the unknown, what should we do? Assuming the "ghost witness" had managed, somehow (very unlikely if not impossible) to rule out all present scientifically explained phenomena, is the solution to then...guess? To stick the "supernatural" label over it? "I don't understand what it was, so it must be this thing I've heard about which has no evidence behind it whatsoever!" is not only a complete contradiction, it also closes the door on further exploration.

The fact is that with the evidence we have at the moment, if any such vision could not be explained (as I said, this would be a rare ocurrence in itself) it would be as likely to be a "ghost" as it would to be god, a fairy, a brief vision into a parallel universe, an alien's fart, a wizard's spell or the dream of an elephant. Sticking the label "ghost" onto the unknown is therefore utterly ludicrous.

The number of possible natural explanations which could ultimately be proven is so huge that it would be very difficult to rule them all out. It would be necessary, logically, to begin with these before even considering any makebelieve...and even if it reached this stage, without evidence or any basis in reality, no fairy story is more likely to be real than anything a human mind could invent.

 

Pure crazy talk for the reasons stated above. This level of confusion about what constitutes a logical or reasonable conclusion is frightening.

 

Getting back to the OP's question, should "ghosts" ever be proven to be real, I fail to see why atheism would be incompatible with their existence. An atheist simply does not have a belief in a diety (or multiple dieties) There are no other prerequisites. A "ghost" would obey laws which could eventually be measured and evaluated, and would simply become a natural phenomenon which does nothing to prove or disprove gods.

 

Not that I'm aware of ....

 

i've seen things i can't explain and i could easily attribute them to being 'ghosts' or something supernatural. i'm not trying to have an answer for everything, though. i'm okay with not knowing exactly what happened and i don't have to fall back on superstition to feel okay about it. im totally atheist btw

 

Exactly. The only thing that doesn't work with atheism is theism.

As long as you don't believe in a personified deity, you can believe in anything you like and still consider yourself an atheist.

But are labels really that important? Are you so attached to being an atheist that you'll let its dogma dictate what you may or may not believe?

 

I'm sorry. But you're so smart you knew what I was saying anyway. :2thumbsup:

 

I consider myself to be a atheist, meaning that I do not believe in a all powerful god that is making the world go round. This does not mean that I do not believe in the spirit or energy that all things living possess to one degree or another. I think a ghost may be a persons energy, maybe through force of will, lingering after the persons body is long gone. But who knows, just a thought.

 

I disagree. Much depends on the purpose of the observer. A scientist would want to hold out for more evidence--beyond a reasonable doubt, peer confirmation in replicable observations, etc. That's because scientists are mainly concerned about avoiding Type 1 errors--believing things that aren't true, instead of Type 2 errors--not believing things that are true. That's their job. But both are errors. Ordinary folks like me, who are concerned with making our way in an ambiguous reality under the constraints of a limited lifespan, don't necessarily have to adopt such rigorous methods. Agnosticism makes sense as a default position, but some of us may prefer to risk bolder assumptions. If I were in an house and were regularly confronted with flying objects, apparitions, rattling chains, etc., I might just say--unexplained phenomena. Or I might say "I must be having an hallucination" and call in some scientists to check it out. If they corroborate the reality of the phenomena that seems not to fit any accepted scientific theory, but does fit traditional assumptions about ghosts, I would be confronted with a further choice: hold out for more evidence or conclude, at least tentatively, that ghosts might be real, and by definition supernatural. Since I'm not a scientist, I think it would be perfectly reasonable to bet on the latter possibility. A person who resists without a professional reason to do so is whistling past the graveyard. If that's what (s)he wants to do, no problemo, as long as (s) he doesn't get all huffy and superior about it. By the way, I currently refuse to believe in ghosts as a matter of policy, whether there are any or not. To believe in them without any empirically refutable theoretical basis for doing so would put me in the position of having to explain why I believe in them but not werewolves, leprechauns, etc.

 

I am an atheist and also a believer in "ghosts". Here is my take (which I'm aware is very unconventional) - I see "ghosts" as more of another dimensional thing. Another energy field, if you will.

 

That's hallucination for you.
Humans are fucking crazy, and when they can't explain something, shit's always ghosts or gods.

Demons, devils, goblins? More like psychedelic drugs, Bed paralysis and exhaustion/starvation/sleep deprevation.

Infact there's so many different ways humans hallucinate it's fucking highly unlikely that casper's gonna come down and give me a handjob.

 

But you , of course, don't do that, since you're not human and therefor not "fucking crazy"? I think it's possible for a non-believer to be "fucking crazy".Athiest guru Daniel Dennett is a good example. He's the prototypical "nutty professor" who thinks he has reality entirely figured out, but whose students think is out of touch with reality. He is so determined to disbelieve anything that can't be proven scientifically that he denies his own subjective consciousness. That, dear friends, is a true nutcase.

 

What? When did I say that. I have never claimed that I have never hallucinated, nor was I any better than those who have.

But I have atleast made the effort to separate fantasy from reality and gone down the road of sanity.

You make the claim that I try madly to disbelieve anything, but the very opposite is correct. You see I tried, VERY hard to believe in Ghosts, demons and Goblins like the rest of the mindless masses.

I went to countless classes, read the bible, read countless religious texts but found that The more I knew, the more I found that the entirety of it was bullshit.

Disprovable ideas, with nothing to back it up, no evidence or anything but the word of men thousands of years ago.... somehow is now sane?

Do you think that I have reality entirely figured out? Do you think that I am some snob who is entirely close minded? I bet you do, I bet you despise my way of thought, completely unwavered by the howlings of madmen.

 

Well, when you set yourself apart from the "mindless masses" and the "howlings of madment", that would seem to be a plausible conclusion. Why would anyone try to believe in ghosts and goblins?

 

"Blissfullyawareofitall" is surely trolling.

Location: On the Pale Blue Dot. hahaha