Atheism or Naturalism?

marti8

I'm atheist (agnostic atheist) and I'm wondering why Atheist Ireland call themselves that when they say they refute anything supernatural and not simply a deity? As an atheist I don't believe in a god but I do believe in what people would call "ghosts". But I only believe in that because of first hand experiencee etc - had I not had first hand experience I wouldn't believe in that.

Atheism is soley about the lack of a belief in a deity - nothing else. Atheism doesn't address any other issue - not ghosts, not unicorns, not vampires, not whatever - soley deities. So, why then does Atheist Ireland say on it's site "Working to build a rational, ethical and secular society free from superstition and supernaturalism"? I'm atheist yet I believe in what would be termed the supernatural. What Atheist Ireland espouse is not simply atheism, it is probably best described as naturalism.

Is it not akin to say the Vegan Society calling themselves the Vegetarian Society - while yes they are vegetarian that is not their "end point", their end point isn't vegetarianism, it's veganism. Imagine they then state that eating eggs or drinking milk should be avoided, vegetarians would be scratching their heads and wondering why - we're vegetarians, not vegans........Same rationale applies to Atheist Ireland claiming they refute all things supernatural, sorry but that ain't atheism, that is something else.

Your thoughts?

MagicMarker

Doesn't AI have an email address or something?

marti8

MagicMarker wrote: »

Doesn't AI have an email address or something?

Yep, they do. Isn't Boards.ie a forum or something? :rolleyes:

CerebralCortex

OP I'd love to know how you got as far as being an atheist and not have a naturalistic world-view? There is no evidence for ghosts by the way. Anecdotes, intuitions and untestable hypothesis do not count as evidence!

marti8

CerebralCortex wrote: »

OP I'd love to know how you got as far as being an atheist and not have a naturalistic world-view? There is no evidence for ghosts by the way. Anecdotes, intuitions and untestable hypothesis do not count as evidence!

Well, not all atheists are naturalist but all naturalists are atheist.

Atheism only deals with the lack of belief in a god. I lack that belief therefore by definition I am atheist. I however do not negate all things which could be considered supernatural. Personally I've arrived at this conclusion from experience, observation. I believe what I have seen, experienced, observed. I guess empiricism is the term you could use, that's empiricism in the philosophical sense, not empirical research in the scientific sense. Unless I have misunderstood the concept, lol.

AhSureTisGrand

While "supernatural" is to me an utterly meaningless word, I do also have misgivings about the name "Atheist Ireland". It seems to me that the organisation's views are better described as anti-theism or secularism (views which I generally agree with, mind). Such a name leads people to believe AI are promoting the "atheist agenda", when in reality that very term is nonsense, as there can be no atheist agenda

CerebralCortex

marti8 wrote: »

Well, not all atheists are naturalist but all naturalists are atheist.

Atheism only deals with the lack of belief in a god. I lack that belief therefore by definition I am atheist. I however do not negate all things which could be considered supernatural. Personally I've arrived at this conclusion from experience, observation. I believe what I have seen, experienced, observed. I guess empiricism is the term you could use, that's empiricism in the philosophical sense, not empirical research in the scientific sense. Unless I have misunderstood the concept, lol.

A very irrational world-view!

Turtwig

CerebralCortex wrote: »

A very irrational world-view!

But still an atheistic one.:D

pH

marti8 wrote: »

Is it not akin to say the Vegan Society calling themselves the Vegetarian Society - while yes they are vegetarian that is not their "end point", their end point isn't vegetarianism, it's veganism. Imagine they then state that eating eggs or drinking milk should be avoided, vegetarians would be scratching their heads and wondering why - we're vegetarians, not vegans........Same rationale applies to Atheist Ireland claiming they refute all things supernatural, sorry but that ain't atheism, that is something else.

Your thoughts?

No, it would be more akin to the vegetarian society taking a position on animal welfare - say the treatment of chickens and cows. This wouldn't be strictly anything to do with vegetarianism, they may also take a position on healthy eating again not strictly anything to do with "not eating meat".

I take it that if you believe in ghosts, you believe that something, a spirit/ soul can survive death of a body and live on. I take it you believe also that conciousness is not totally produced by a material process in the brain - in that you believe that this spirit can exist after the body/brain is gone.

What to you believe has happened to the millions of people who have died? Do they all become ghosts? What happens then?

marti8

CerebralCortex wrote: »

A very irrational world-view!

Why?

marti8

pH wrote: »

No, it would be more akin to the vegetarian society taking a position on animal welfare - say the treatment of chickens and cows. This wouldn't be strictly anything to do with vegetarianism, they may also take a position on healthy eating again not strictly anything to do with "not eating meat".

I take it that if you believe in ghosts, you believe that something, a spirit/ soul can survive death of a body and live on. I take it you believe also that conciousness is not totally produced by a material process in the brain - in that you believe that this spirit can exist after the body/brain is gone.

What to you believe has happened to the millions of people who have died? Do they all become ghosts? What happens then?

I believe in so-called "ghosts", do I know what they are etc etc - no. I know nothing about them other than they exist. I can take guesses but that is all they are, guesses.

MagicMarker

marti8 wrote: »

I know nothing about them other than they exist

You know they exist? Well, please share with the rest of the class, how do you know this?

Mark Hamill

marti8 wrote: »

I believe in so-called "ghosts", do I know what they are etc etc - no. I know nothing about them other than they exist. I can take guesses but that is all they are, guesses.

If you dont know anything about them, how do you know they are ghosts?

marti8

MagicMarker wrote: »

You know they exist? Well, please share with the rest of the class, how do you know this?

Empiricism. I "know" they exist because I have observed that they exist.

Turtwig

marti8 wrote: »

Empiricism. I "know" they exist because I have observed that they exist.

Please explain what you observed in detail.:)

marti8

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If you dont know anything about them, how do you know they are ghosts?

I use the term "ghost" as this is the standard use of the term, you can call them jbsdjhbkjhjkgf if you like. Whatever word you choose to use doesn't change the basics of it. I believe in the phenomena called "ghosts".

marti8

Malty_T wrote: »

Please explain what you observed in detail.:)

Why? It's pointless in a way, those who believe in them will still believe, those who don't, won't. One can most certainly be an atheist and believe in the supernatural, one cannot be a naturalist and believe in the supernatural however.

Turtwig

marti8 wrote: »

Why? It's pointless in a way, those who believe in them will still believe, those who don't, won't..

Perhaps, but if that were true, how did you come to believe in ghosts in the first place?

marti8

Malty_T wrote: »

Perhaps, but if that were true, how did you come to believe in ghosts in the first place?

If what were true?

Why do I believe in ghosts? I've said why already, because of experience, observation. Empiricism.

I reckon OP has a point

Didn't we have a discussion on this a while back, I can't remember the outcome - surely atheism doesn't preclude a belief in some supernatural stuff anyway

Wooly Hat

The word "supernatural" has more than one meaning. It has the same meaning as the word paranormal, in the sense of alien life and ghosts, but it's also used in the sense of beyond the natural, like a divinity. It has two different senses so both AI and OP are right.

I must also point out the distinction between theism and deism. Deism is the belief that the universe is the work of a divinity that does not interfere in human affairs. Theism is the belief that a divinity created and sustains the universe, and is a being with whom you have a personal realationship and so on.

It's very easy to accept the arguments against both positions, and I am an atheist. But I'm an atheist who is also open to the paranormal. I have witnessed objects in the sky (which made me rethink everything, I might add) and now I'm definitely quite open to the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe.

And furthermore, I have a deep convinction about the authenticity of other types of spiritual experiences which are regularly dismissed by skeptics. So I'm not a positivist with regard to rationalism; or naturalism, or materialism.

I try to keep in mind that these little arguments for and against the existence of god is very much so a small - and even petty - earthly endeavour. Being a high flying spirit, I'm above all that.

Beruthiel

marti8 wrote: »

I believe in the phenomena called "ghosts".

marti8 wrote:

I am atheist

So, I attempted to input both comments into my brain, and, nope, it's just not working for me.
Does not compute.

Can you please explain in more detail how you can be an atheist and still believe in ghosts?

marti8

Beruthiel wrote: »

So, I attempted to input both comments into my brain, and, nope, it's just not working for me.
Does not compute.

Can you please explain in more detail how you can be an atheist and still believe in ghosts?

Do you know what atheism refers to? I'll give you a hint it doesn't refer to "ghosts". It solely refers to a lack of belief in a deity - not a lack of belief in anything else.

marti8

marti8 wrote: »

Do you know what atheism refers to? I'll give you a hint it doesn't refer to "ghosts". It solely refers to a lack of belief in a deity - not a lack of belief in anything else.

Most atheists here came to their position through rational and critical thought.
Applying these same thoughts to the idea of ghosts leads us to the same conclusion as it does with God.

You've already explained that you believe in ghost because you've "observed" them.
I'm sure you're aware that there's people who claim they have "observed" God.

So two questions before a discussion can continue:
What exactly have you "observed"?
And why do you not believe in God?

Turtwig

marti8 wrote: »

If what were true?

Why do I believe in ghosts? I've said why already, because of experience, observation. Empiricism.

If what you said about those who believe will continue to believe and those who don't don't is true, then how did you come to believe in ghosts in the first place?:) To put it another way, you changed your own belief, what makes you think I won't?

Turtwig

marti8 wrote: »

If what were true?

Why do I believe in ghosts? I've said why already, because of experience, observation. Empiricism.

If what you said about those who believe will continue to believe and those who don't don't is true, then how did you come to believe in ghosts in the first place?:) To put it another way, you changed your own belief, what makes you think I won't?

marti8

Malty_T wrote: »

If what you said about those who believe will continue to believe and those who don't don't is true, then how did you come to believe in ghosts in the first place?:) To put it another way, you changed your own belief, what makes you think I won't?

Because I don't think anyone will change their beliefs or lack of becaue of some guy posting on an internet forum I'm not here to make other atheists believe in the supernatural. Not at all. I'm just realting my POV. I think AI do a good job overall - except when it comes to how they term themselves "atheist", as I said it's like the vegan terming themselves "vegetarian", maybe it's all semantics but words matter nonetheless.

Wooly Hat

marti8 wrote: »

how they term themselves "atheist"...

Atheism means someone who is not a theist. Because a person usually does not define themselves by what they don't believe, AI use the term supernatual as general term when rejecting all theism/deism/divinity/God/monotheism/polytheism.

marti8

King Mob wrote: »

Most atheists here came to their position through rational and critical thought.
Applying these same thoughts to the idea of ghosts leads us to the same conclusion as it does with God.

You've already explained that you believe in ghost because you've "observed" them.
I'm sure you're aware that there's people who claim they have "observed" God.

So two questions before a discussion can continue:
What exactly have you "observed"?
And why do you not believe in God?

I'm not concerned with how "most" atheists arrive at their POV. That's upto each individual. Yes, I'm sure there are folks out there who believe they speak with god on a daily basis or even "see" god - fine, doesn't bother me, I don't agree with them but let them think whatever they want, lol.

What have I observed exactly? Ok, not that it will make a difference. There have been three different times over the years that I have seen/observed "ghosts". First time when I was a kid, walking home with some cousins we passed a house where an elderly man used to live but had died, I looked up at a window and there I saw this man looking back at me with either a smile or grin on his face and "light" around him. We looked at each dead square in the eye for a couple of seconds and I ran off. Dismiss it by all means if you wish.

Second time was about 15 years later when staying in an old mill that had been renovated into a tourist hostel I caught a glimpse of a woman pass the kitchen window where I was standing making coffee - now it'd take too long to describe layout etc but they were several windows in the kitchen and outside only one path, no where for someone to vanish to basically. I was wondering who it was so I went to the next window, looked out but nobody was there or on the path. Nobody. While it was only a glimpse, a second or two, I could vaguely make out what she was wearing, you know those types of maids dresses from whatever era, Victorian lets say, it was long and dark - either brown or black. Just swept past the path and was gone. The night before the place had erupted in what folks would call paranormal activity, a very, very odd night and I wasn't the only one to experience it all but that's another story.

Third time was maybe 5 years ago when I was sleeping in bed, wake up to see a woman standing next to the bed looking down at me. An elderly lady, translucent, clothed in what seems to have been a long nightdress or something and something on her head like a hat or something (maybe a bed hat or whatever the hell they called them before) I simply closed my eyes for a few seconds, opened them again and nobody was there. I've heard of waking dreams etc and some may argue that that was what I saw however no offence but I don't dream about old ladies wearing nightdresses, lol.

Anyway, why don't I believe in god? I have no evidence of god. I consider observation as evidence.

Mark Hamill

marti8 wrote: »

I use the term "ghost" as this is the standard use of the term, you can call them jbsdjhbkjhjkgf if you like. Whatever word you choose to use doesn't change the basics of it. I believe in the phenomena called "ghosts".

No, you dont. You believe in a phenomena that you have personally experienced, one which you have no scientific explanation for. However you also admit that you dont know what this supernatural phenomena actually is, so to say you believe in ghosts makes about as much sense as saying that, because of experiencing this phenomenon, you belief in thundercats. "Ghosts" (like "thundercats"), is defined, it means a specific thing. You dont know what specific thing you saw, so labeling it as a ghost is wrong.

(NB: this is a separate point to whether or not you actually experienced a supernatural event, I am only questioning you given it a definite label when you admit you have no idea what you saw)

marti8

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No, you dont. You believe in a phenomena that you have personally experienced, one which you have no scientific explanation for. However you also admit that you dont know what this supernatural phenomena actually is, so to say you believe in ghosts makes about as much sense as saying that, because of experiencing this phenomenon, you belief in thundercats. "Ghosts" (like "thundercats"), is defined, it means a specific thing. You dont know what specific thing you saw, so labeling it as a ghost is wrong.

(NB: this is a separate point to whether or not you actually experienced a supernatural event, I am only questioning you given it a definite label when you admit you have no idea what you saw)

I believe in the phenomena which is called a "ghost". Simple as that. Perhaps we lack the scientific ability at this present point in time, or ever, to quantify or understand what it was I and others see?

marti8

marti8 wrote: »

I'm not concerned with how "most" atheists arrive at their POV. That's upto each individual. Yes, I'm sure there are folks out there who believe they speak with god on a daily basis or even "see" god - fine, doesn't bother me, I don't agree with them but let them think whatever they want, lol.

What have I observed exactly? Ok, not that it will make a difference. There have been three different times over the years that I have seen/observed "ghosts". First time when I was a kid, walking home with some cousins we passed a house where an elderly man used to live but had died, I looked up at a window and there I saw this man looking back at me with either a smile or grin on his face and "light" around him. We looked at each dead square in the eye for a couple of seconds and I ran off. Dismiss it by all means if you wish.

Second time was about 15 years later when staying in an old mill that had been renovated into a tourist hostel I caught a glimpse of a woman pass the kitchen window where I was standing making coffee - now it'd take too long to describe layout etc but they were several windows in the kitchen and outside only one path, no where for someone to vanish to basically. I was wondering who it was so I went to the next window, looked out but nobody was there or on the path. Nobody. While it was only a glimpse, a second or two, I could vaguely make out what she was wearing, you know those types of maids dresses from whatever era, Victorian lets say, it was long and dark - either brown or black. Just swept past the path and was gone. The night before the place had erupted in what folks would call paranormal activity, a very, very odd night and I wasn't the only one to experience it all but that's another story.

Third time was maybe 5 years ago when I was sleeping in bed, wake up to see a woman standing next to the bed looking down at me. An elderly lady, translucent, clothed in what seems to have been a long nightdress or something and something on her head like a hat or something (maybe a bed hat or whatever the hell they called them before) I simply closed my eyes for a few seconds, opened them again and nobody was there. I've heard of waking dreams etc and some may argue that that was what I saw however no offence but I don't dream about old ladies wearing nightdresses, lol.

Anyway, why don't I believe in god? I have no evidence of god. I consider observation as evidence.

You've no idea how much I, and many, many others can relate to the above. I've posted about it (briefly) before, here. If you experience something you can't explain it's far more rational to assume it's because of a misfiring of your brain than it is to assume it's a supernatural phenomenon.

Mark Hamill

marti8 wrote: »

I believe in the phenomena which is called a "ghost". Simple as that. Perhaps we lack the scientific ability at this present point in time, or ever, to quantify or understand what it was I and others see?

No you dont, and you didn't read my post, not the bit at the end: this is a separate point to whether or not you actually experienced a supernatural event, I am only questioning you given it a definite label when you admit you have no idea what you saw. I am not (at the moment) disputing that you saw something that cannot be explained by science. I am disputing you giving a definitive label to something when you admit that you dont know anything about it. By labeling it, you are declaring something about it. Do you see what I am saying?

Wooly Hat

If OP would emphasise that he is an agnostic I'm sure some might find it easier to accept how he reconciles this position with his position on the supernatural.

marti8

Wooly Hat wrote: »

If OP would emphasise that he is an agnostic I'm sure some might find it easier to accept how he reconciles this position with his position on the supernatural.

I was agnostic for probably close on 20 years but these days I'd use the term atheist, agnostic atheist to be more correct.

MagicMarker

So, you saw two people through a window, and another just after waking up.

Yawn.

marti8

marti8 wrote: »

I'm not concerned with how "most" atheists arrive at their POV. That's upto each individual. Yes, I'm sure there are folks out there who believe they speak with god on a daily basis or even "see" god - fine, doesn't bother me, I don't agree with them but let them think whatever they want, lol.

But most atheists in Atheist Ireland are of this position as are most here, and that's why AI rejects all supernatural things and why people here find it odd you believe in ghosts/

marti8 wrote: »

What have I observed exactly? Ok, not that it will make a difference. There have been three different times over the years that I have seen/observed "ghosts". First time when I was a kid, walking home with some cousins we passed a house where an elderly man used to live but had died, I looked up at a window and there I saw this man looking back at me with either a smile or grin on his face and "light" around him. We looked at each dead square in the eye for a couple of seconds and I ran off. Dismiss it by all means if you wish.

So how do you know that it wasn't just a dude in the window?

marti8 wrote: »

Second time was about 15 years later when staying in an old mill that had been renovated into a tourist hostel I caught a glimpse of a woman pass the kitchen window where I was standing making coffee - now it'd take too long to describe layout etc but they were several windows in the kitchen and outside only one path, no where for someone to vanish to basically. I was wondering who it was so I went to the next window, looked out but nobody was there or on the path. Nobody. While it was only a glimpse, a second or two, I could vaguely make out what she was wearing, you know those types of maids dresses from whatever era, Victorian lets say, it was long and dark - either brown or black. Just swept past the path and was gone. The night before the place had erupted in what folks would call paranormal activity, a very, very odd night and I wasn't the only one to experience it all but that's another story.

Again how do you know it wasn't just a woman or anything that could flutter past the window and look like a woman out of the corner of the eye?

marti8 wrote: »

Third time was maybe 5 years ago when I was sleeping in bed, wake up to see a woman standing next to the bed looking down at me. An elderly lady, translucent, clothed in what seems to have been a long nightdress or something and something on her head like a hat or something (maybe a bed hat or whatever the hell they called them before) I simply closed my eyes for a few seconds, opened them again and nobody was there. I've heard of waking dreams etc and some may argue that that was what I saw however no offence but I don't dream about old ladies wearing nightdresses, lol.

That is exactly what a waking dream is.
You can declare you don't dream about something, but that doesn't make it so.

marti8 wrote: »

Anyway, why don't I believe in god? I have no evidence of god. I consider observation as evidence.

But none of those things would count as observation by any definition.
And they all seem as about as flimsy as the "observations" of people seeing angels or saints or God or whatever.
Are these observations valid? How do you explain what these people are seeing and most importantly why doesn't it apply to your "observations"?

Mark Hamill

marti8 wrote: »

First time when I was a kid, walking home with some cousins we passed a house where an elderly man used to live but had died, I looked up at a window and there I saw this man looking back at me with either a smile or grin on his face and "light" around him. We looked at each dead square in the eye for a couple of seconds and I ran off. Dismiss it by all means if you wish.

Could have been a different old man in the house picking up his relatives things (assuming the old man had died recently before the event), a picture on the wall visible to the outside.

marti8 wrote: »

Second time was about 15 years later when staying in an old mill that had been renovated into a tourist hostel I caught a glimpse of a woman pass the kitchen window where I was standing making coffee - now it'd take too long to describe layout etc but they were several windows in the kitchen and outside only one path, no where for someone to vanish to basically. I was wondering who it was so I went to the next window, looked out but nobody was there or on the path. Nobody.

You only caught a glimpse of the woman, she could have been wearing anything even remotely dark and dress like and your mind could insert the rest. As for where she went, she may have passed the windows ahead out of your notice, or she have stopped after the first window (were you saw her go by) and then gone back where she came from when you moved to the second window to see her passing by.

marti8 wrote: »

Third time was maybe 5 years ago when I was sleeping in bed, wake up to see a woman standing next to the bed looking down at me. An elderly lady, translucent, clothed in what seems to have been a long nightdress or something and something on her head like a hat or something (maybe a bed hat or whatever the hell they called them before) I simply closed my eyes for a few seconds, opened them again and nobody was there. I've heard of waking dreams etc and some may argue that that was what I saw however no offence but I don't dream about old ladies wearing nightdresses, lol.

I've had pretty messed up dreams, concerning things that aren't usually on my mind, its far from uncommon.

Nothing here seems that unexplainable.

marti8

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No you dont, and you didn't read my post, not the bit at the end: this is a separate point to whether or not you actually experienced a supernatural event, I am only questioning you given it a definite label when you admit you have no idea what you saw. I am not (at the moment) disputing that you saw something that cannot be explained by science. I am disputing you giving a definitive label to something when you admit that you dont know anything about it. By labeling it, you are declaring something about it. Do you see what I am saying?

If it walks like a duck........I'm labelling it as a "ghost" because it fits the parameters. I am not saying I don't understand what I saw, I do, to the extent that I believe I saw a "ghost" - what I don't understand is exactly what a ghost is. This is what I am saying. I can take a guess but that would be just that, a guess - as I said before.

marti8

MagicMarker wrote: »

So, you saw two people through a window, and another just after waking up.

Yawn.

Yawn away, lol.

marti8

King Mob wrote: »

But most atheists in Atheist Ireland are of this position as are most here, and that's why AI rejects all supernatural things and why people here find it odd you believe in ghosts/


So how do you know that it wasn't just a dude in the window?


Again how do you know it wasn't just a woman or anything that could flutter past the window and look like a woman out of the corner of the eye?


That is exactly what a waking dream is.
You can declare you don't dream about something, but that doesn't make it so.

But none of those things would count as observation by any definition.
And they all seem as about as flimsy as the "observations" of people seeing angels or saints or God or whatever.
Are these observations valid? How do you explain what these people are seeing and most importantly why doesn't it apply to your "observations"?

I had seen that man several timess when he was alive and it was the same man I saw in the window, although he was dead.

As I explained, there was literally nowhere for a person to go to in literally a second or two, the outlay of the yard buildings etc negates that possibility. Sommething fluttering past? This didn't flutter, it walked. I know the difference between a plastic bag and a woman dressed in a brown or black dress, lol.

By all means call it a waking dream and I will by all means call it a supernatural event. You cannot prove to me it was a waking dream and I cannot prove to you it was a supernatural event.

marti8

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Could have been a different old man in the house picking up his relatives things (assuming the old man had died recently before the event), a picture on the wall visible to the outside.


You only caught a glimpse of the woman, she could have been wearing anything even remotely dark and dress like and your mind could insert the rest. As for where she went, she may have passed the windows ahead out of your notice, or she have stopped after the first window (were you saw her go by) and then gone back where she came from when you moved to the second window to see her passing by.


I've had pretty messed up dreams, concerning things that aren't usually on my mind, its far from uncommon.

Nothing here seems that unexplainable.

1) Nope, same man. Not a picture.

2) The layout didn't allow for that. I would have seen her no matter what direction she went in.

3) I never said it was a dream, it wasn't, I was awake.

marti8

marti8 wrote: »

I had seen that man several timess when he was alive and it was the same man I saw in the window, although he was dead.

So is it possible that it could have been his brother or a picture or even another person, with your imagination and inherently flawed human memory filling in the rest? Yes or no?

marti8 wrote: »

As I explained, there was literally nowhere for a person to go to literally a second or two, the outlay of the yard buildings etc negates that possibility. Sommething fluttering past? This didn't flutter, it walked. I know the difference between a plastic bag and a woman dressed in a brown or black dress, lol.

But you also said that it was only a moment or two out of the corner of your eye. How can you have glean this detail is that short time without really looking? And how do you know that there was no way to go? is it possible that there was a way you just didn't see or think of?

marti8 wrote: »

By all means call it a waking dream and I will by all means call it a supernatural event. You cannot prove to me it was a waking dream and I cannot prove to you it was a supernatural event.

But how do you know it was supernatural when there's a perfectly plausible, rational, and well understood explanation that clearly matches what you describe?

And you've avoided the question:
And they all seem as about as flimsy as the "observations" of people seeing angels or saints or God or whatever.
Are these observations valid? How do you explain what these people are seeing and most importantly why doesn't it apply to your "observations"?

Turtwig

marti8 wrote: »

I'm not concerned with how "most" atheists arrive at their POV. That's upto each individual. Yes, I'm sure there are folks out there who believe they speak with god on a daily basis or even "see" god - fine, doesn't bother me, I don't agree with them but let them think whatever they want, lol.

What have I observed exactly? Ok, not that it will make a difference. There have been three different times over the years that I have seen/observed "ghosts". First time when I was a kid, walking home with some cousins we passed a house where an elderly man used to live but had died, I looked up at a window and there I saw this man looking back at me with either a smile or grin on his face and "light" around him. We looked at each dead square in the eye for a couple of seconds and I ran off. Dismiss it by all means if you wish.

Second time was about 15 years later when staying in an old mill that had been renovated into a tourist hostel I caught a glimpse of a woman pass the kitchen window where I was standing making coffee - now it'd take too long to describe layout etc but they were several windows in the kitchen and outside only one path, no where for someone to vanish to basically. I was wondering who it was so I went to the next window, looked out but nobody was there or on the path. Nobody. While it was only a glimpse, a second or two, I could vaguely make out what she was wearing, you know those types of maids dresses from whatever era, Victorian lets say, it was long and dark - either brown or black. Just swept past the path and was gone. The night before the place had erupted in what folks would call paranormal activity, a very, very odd night and I wasn't the only one to experience it all but that's another story.

Third time was maybe 5 years ago when I was sleeping in bed, wake up to see a woman standing next to the bed looking down at me. An elderly lady, translucent, clothed in what seems to have been a long nightdress or something and something on her head like a hat or something (maybe a bed hat or whatever the hell they called them before) I simply closed my eyes for a few seconds, opened them again and nobody was there. I've heard of waking dreams etc and some may argue that that was what I saw however no offence but I don't dream about old ladies wearing nightdresses, lol.

Anyway, why don't I believe in god? I have no evidence of god. I consider observation as evidence.

On a scale of 1-10 how vividly do you remember these instances?

marti8

marti8 wrote: »

3) I never said it was a dream, it wasn't, I was awake.

I like how you didn't respond to my post where I gave a completely rational and understood explanation for your third experience.

marti8

King Mob wrote: »

So is it possible that it could have been his brother or a picture or even another person, with your imagination and inherently flawed human memory filling in the rest? Yes or no?


But you also said that it was only a moment or two out of the corner of your eye. How can you have glean this detail is that short time without really looking? And how do you know that there was no way to go? is it possible that there was a way you just didn't see or think of?


But how do you know it was supernatural when there's a perfectly plausible, rational, and well understood explanation that clearly matches what you describe?

And you've avoided the question:
And they all seem as about as flimsy as the "observations" of people seeing angels or saints or God or whatever.
Are these observations valid? How do you explain what these people are seeing and most importantly why doesn't it apply to your "observations"?

Yes or no? Lol, if you want to go that route one could always argue there are no definites in life, we can know nothing for certain, we cannot even say science is accurate, we have to then question everything, always, non-stop, all the time. Am I even typing now or am I dreaming? Did you just ask me a question or did you just imagine you asked me a question? And blah blah blah....lol Could it have been his brother (if he had a brother) Yes, sure, Do I believe it was? No. We're back at square one which is where we'll always end up.

Nope, I stayed there for a few weeks so knew the layout. All it takes is a couple of seconds to make out a figure, possibly just a second.

I haven't heard any plausible, rational explanations to date.

marti8

Malty_T wrote: »

On a scale of 1-10 how vividly do you remember these instances?

That'd be a 10.

CerebralCortex

marti8 wrote: »

Yes or no? Lol, if you want to go that route one could always argue there are no definites in life, we can know nothing for certain, we cannot even say science is accurate, we have to then question everything, always, non-stop, all the time. Am I even typing now or am I dreaming? Did you just ask me a question or did you just imagine you asked me a question? And blah blah blah....lol Could it have been his brother (if he had a brother) Yes, sure, Do I believe it was? No. We're back at square one which is where we'll always end up.

Nope, I stayed there for a few weeks so knew the layout. All it takes is a couple of seconds to make out a figure, possibly just a second.

I haven't heard any plausible, rational explanations to date.

Hallucination.

marti8

gvn wrote: »

I like how you didn't respond to my post where I gave a completely rational and understood explanation for your third experience.

I read it qucikly and what you are saying is possible but then many things are possible. However again I'll contend I was awake not asleep, I was awake.

Atheism and the belief in so-called "ghosts" are not mutually exclusive. Naturalism and the belief in so-called "ghosts" are mutually exclusive.

Mark Hamill

marti8 wrote: »

If it walks like a duck........I'm labelling it as a "ghost" because it fits the parameters. I am not saying I don't understand what I saw, I do, to the extent that I believe I saw a "ghost" - what I don't understand is exactly what a ghost is. This is what I am saying. I can take a guess but that would be just that, a guess - as I said before.

Ok, but you understand why this contradicts what you said earlier ("do I know what they are etc etc - no. I know nothing about them other than they exist.")? I'm not trying to get one over on you or anything, but you claimed not to know anything about what these things are while at the same time, labeling them (meaning you knew enough about them to label them).
So you that the spirits of dead people can roam the earth as ghosts?

marti8

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Hallucination.

Prove it.