Atheism or Naturalism?

marti8

marti8 wrote: »

But couldn't it be said that objectivity is subjective, in the sense that objectivity is what comes from the subjective shared conclusion of a group? In that case isn't objectivity relative?

If it's objective then it exists regardless of our perception of it.

Why stop there with your journey into the rabbit hole? You could go on to argue on epistemological grounds: how can we really know anything? What is knowing? You can go even deeper if you want.

But, what's the point of all of this? You're just trying to obfuscate matters; you're trying to equate objectivity to subjectivity so that your claim stands on equal ground to all other claims, specifically claims of a scientific nature.

It's getting tiresome, I have to say. I'll be bowing out of this argument from here on in.

marti8

King Mob wrote: »

And if you define black as white then black and white are the same thing....

Objective facts are objective because the can be confirmed independently and empirically regardless of what the person believes or wants to believe.

I assume since you've ignored the question for the fifth time you've no answer?

What question? Objective evidence?

Yes but confirmed by people who inherently give a subjective POV, no? I mean is there real objectivity? Someone could claim that objective facts are objective facts when you accept them as objective facts. I'm just making the argument.

King Mob

marti8 wrote: »

What question? Objective evidence?

So why do you believe that they are ghosts and not neurological effects considering that even you can't exclude one or the other?

Now how many more times do I have to ask it before you finally answer it?

marti8 wrote: »

Yes but confirmed by people who inherently give a subjective POV, no? I mean is there real objectivity? Someone could claim that objective facts are objective facts when you accept them as objective facts. I'm just making the argument.

There are methods for objectively determining facts. It's called science.
Your making the argument to avoid basic questions.
Shockingly like what religious people often do...

marti8

Gotta go but I'll get back to you after communicating with Elvis and Einstein. Thanks.

Jarndyce

marti8 wrote: »

Gotta go but I'll get back to you after communicating with Elvis and Einstein. Thanks.

Pathetic.

marti8

Jarndyce wrote: »

Pathetic.

Lol, no SOH

Jarndyce

marti8 wrote: »

Lol, no SOH

I can assure you, I have.

I have read some pages of this thread and I must comment that I feel it is a remarkable irony that you call yourself an atheist yet you engage in the same folly of the religious. By that I mean, you refer to your 'personal experience' of ghosts much in the same way that a religious person will refer to their personal experience of God. Based on the facts of your 'encounters', it is clearly irrational to draw the conclusion that ghosts exist.

Do you believe ghosts might also exist for chimpanzees, gorillas or other creatures with whom we share 99% of our DNA? If not, why? Because human beings are perhaps somehow special? Oopsy, we are into religious territory now.

In other words, I am suggesting that if you possessed so much as a modicum of common sense and the ability to rationally consider evidence, it should be quite apparent to you that you were mistaken. Other posts have made good points on this, essentially saying that you saw persons behind windows in the first two encounters, and you had a waking dream in the third.

Yet, like the religious person, you still reject rationality in favour of your irrational belief which is devoid of anything resembling evidence.

marti8

Jarndyce wrote: »

I can assure you, I have.

I have read some pages of this thread and I must comment that I feel it is a remarkable irony that you call yourself an atheist yet you engage in the same folly of the religious. By that I mean, you refer to your 'personal experience' of ghosts much in the same way that a religious person will refer to their personal experience of God. Based on the facts of your 'encounters', it is clearly irrational to draw the conclusion that ghosts exist.

Do you believe ghosts might also exist for chimpanzees, gorillas or other creatures with whom we share 99% of our DNA? If not, why? Because human beings are perhaps somehow special? Oopsy, we are into religious territory now.

In other words, I am suggesting that if you possessed so much as a modicum of common sense and the ability to rationally consider evidence, it should be quite apparent to you that you were mistaken. Other posts have made good points on this, essentially saying that you saw persons behind windows in the first two encounters, and you had a waking dream in the third.

Yet, like the religious person, you still reject rationality in favour of your irrational belief which is devoid of anything resembling evidence.

Lol, I don't have common sense becuase I don't agree with what some others are proposing? You used the word rationality, I have said that what is rational can be relative to the individual.

You are saying I had a waking dream etc etc based on what proof? Or based on your own subjective interpretation of events you weren't even party to?

CerebralCortex

marti8 wrote: »

Lol, I don't have common sense becuase I don't agree with what some others are proposing? You used the word rationality, I have said that what is rational can be relative to the individual.

You are saying I had a waking dream etc etc based on what proof? Or based on your own subjective interpretation of events you weren't even party to?

NO. IT. CAN'T!

King Mob

marti8 wrote: »

You are saying I had a waking dream etc etc based on what proof? Or based on your own subjective interpretation of events you weren't even party to?

Well we know and can demonstrate that people have faulty memories, mistake things for other things, can experience waking dreams and sleep paralysis and other such psychological effects.
All of which can 100% explain your stories.

Now can you demonstrate the existence of ghosts like we can with the non-childish explanations?

marti8

CerebralCortex wrote: »

NO. IT. CAN'T!

Yes, it can. Is feider linn!

gbee

I'd be pretty much with you.

I'm an Atheist and don't believe in god, but I do believe in continued life and ghosts and stuff.

I vote Sinn Fein but don't drill with rifles.

I admire Hitler but don't support his views.

I admire the Klan but think they are funny, yer wouldn't see me burning or hanging anybody.

But once an Atheist, some think one is the extreme in all these cases ~ Oh! and we eat babies, don't we?

marti8

King Mob wrote: »

Well we know and can demonstrate that people have faulty memories, mistake things for other things, can experience waking dreams and sleep paralysis and other such psychological effects.
All of which can 100% explain your stories.

Now can you demonstrate the existence of ghosts like we can with the non-childish explanations?

Yes, people can have faulty memories, yes people can make mistakes. Yes, people can have waking dreams etc etc. However the poster said I had a waking dream. Where is the posters proof?

Just as it could have been a waking dream etc etc, equally it could have been a ghost. The poster it seems "believes" it was a waking dream, I "believe" it was "ghost". I don't discount the possibility it was a waking dream, I don't and never have anywhere through this thread discounted the possibility that I am mistaken - not once. Yet the poster seems to discount the possibility it was a "ghost". I don't discount his assertion, he (and others) discount mine.

While a, b or c can explain a, b or c it doesn't mean that that is the explanation - if you see what I mean. All it proposes is one explanation of what it could be rather than being a definite. I have never said what I saw was a "ghost", I am saying I "believe" what I saw was a "ghost".

I believe there are possibly many things we simply don't fully understand whereas many here seem to be of the opinion that if we can't quantify it then it doesn't exist. This is a fundamental flaw.

King Mob

marti8 wrote: »

..., he (and others) discount mine.

Yes we can, as there has never been once a demonstration that ghosts exist.
We can show how our explanations happen all the time and why they happen, you can't show your explanation ever happening.

marti8 wrote: »

While a, b or c can explain a, b or c it doesn't mean that that is the explanation - if you see what I mean. All it proposes is one explanation of what it could be rather than being a definite.

But baring additional evidence which you clearly don't have, the mundane, non-childish explanations are the most likely ones by a long shot.
Occam's razor.

marti8 wrote: »

I believe there are possibly many things we simply don't fully understand whereas many here seem to be of the opinion that if we can't quantify it then it doesn't exist. This is a fundamental flaw.

Yea, and this can apply equally to believe believing in stuff like god or fairies or any number of fictional entities.
However you don't think applying you own logic to stuff you don't believe is valid, otherwise you would be an atheist.
Therefore by you believing in ghosts is contradictory with your own reasons for being an atheist.

Zombrex

marti8 wrote: »

Just as it could have been a waking dream etc etc, equally it could have been a ghost.

But it probably wasn't, given that for it to be a ghost a whole set of unlikely things have to happen, where as for it to be a waking dream that doesn't have to happen.

marti8 wrote: »

The poster it seems "believes" it was a waking dream, I "believe" it was "ghost".

That is a bit stupid of you, isn't it?

marti8 wrote: »

I don't discount the possibility it was a waking dream, I don't and never have anywhere through this thread discounted the possibility that I am mistaken - not once. Yet the poster seems to discount the possibility it was a "ghost".

Justifiably so, given that there is no reason to think it was a ghost, and given what would have to be true for it to be a ghost.

marti8 wrote: »

I believe there are possibly many things we simply don't fully understand

No you don't. If you genuinely believed that you wouldn't have said you believe it was a ghost, since you do not have the understanding of the phenomena to reasonably hold such a belief. By virtue of believing it was a ghost you are saying you understand enough about what happened that you can accurately assess that what you saw was a ghost.

If you genuinely believed that statement you would have said you don't know what it is, but you don't believe it was a waking dream, since by golly if you can't determine it was a waking dream or not it certainly cannot be determined that it was a ghost.

So you are being rather hypocritical. I suspect it is far more exciting to you to believe it was a ghost than something more boring. This unfortunately it not always the best way to choose what to believe though.

CerebralCortex

marti8 wrote: »

Yes, it can. Is feider linn!

IDIOT!!

marti8

King Mob wrote: »

Yes we can, as there has never been once a demonstration that ghosts exist.
We can show how our explanations happen all the time and why they happen, you can't show your explanation ever happening.


But baring additional evidence which you clearly don't have, the mundane, non-childish explanations are the most likely ones by a long shot.
Occam's razor.


Yea, and this can apply equally to believe believing in stuff like god or fairies or any number of fictional entities.
However you don't think applying you own logic to stuff you don't believe is valid, otherwise you would be an atheist.
Therefore by you believing in ghosts is contradictory with your own reasons for being an atheist.

While you can show that in some circumstances your conclusions offer one possible answer, it remains just that, one possible answer.

I think you put too much faith in Occams Razor. Because something has less of a chance of happening or for being the cause of something hppening doesn't in of itself negate other possibilities. You are negating my explanations, I am not negating yours. Iam saying I "believe" what I saw was a so-called "ghost" you are saying no, it wasnn't. You seem to be responding to a possibility with an absolute. Simply because according to you and others something has less of a chance of being so doesn't negate that it is so.

Yes, of course it can equally apply to elves, fairies, good Fianna Failers and a god. However each individual will reach each conclusion by themselves. As I said before I am atheist, that being I don't believe in a god, however I do not say god doesn't exist. I do believe in ghosts however I do not say ghosts do exist. So, no, not contradictory in the least.

marti8

CerebralCortex wrote: »

IDIOT!!

Tut, tut, tut. Self restraint is a virtue

Dave!

marti8 wrote: »

Just as it could have been a waking dream etc etc, equally it could have been a ghost.

errr... where are you getting that from? Just because there are two possibilities doesn't mean that they're equally likely. We have demonstrable objective scientific evidence to support the natural explanation, whereas the ghost explanation is supported by anecdotes, goes against all that we currently know about the world and how it works, and requires the introduction of a whole new phenomenon with no basis in science.

So, when you say the two possibilities are equal, you're really just plucking that from the sky, right? The possibility with all the science behind it is probably more likely?

marti8

Wicknight wrote: »

But it probably wasn't, given that for it to be a ghost a whole set of unlikely things have to happen, where as for it to be a waking dream that doesn't have to happen.



That is a bit stupid of you, isn't it?


Justifiably so, given that there is no reason to think it was a ghost, and given what would have to be true for it to be a ghost.



No you don't. If you genuinely believed that you wouldn't have said you believe it was a ghost, since you do not have the understanding of the phenomena to reasonably hold such a belief. By virtue of believing it was a ghost you are saying you understand enough about what happened that you can accurately assess that what you saw was a ghost.

If you genuinely believed that statement you would have said you don't know what it is, but you don't believe it was a waking dream, since by golly if you can't determine it was a waking dream or not it certainly cannot be determined that it was a ghost.

So you are being rather hypocritical. I suspect it is far more exciting to you to believe it was a ghost than something more boring. This unfortunately it not always the best way to choose what to believe though.

Probably wasn't from your perspective.

Stupid? Again from your perspective, not mine.

Again, the simplest explanation isn't by definition or by default the correct explanation. This is a mistake many seem to make.

No, I am using the word "ghost" as that is the generally accepted description. By all means call it whatever you want. I have never said it was a ghost, I have said I believe it was a ghost. There is a difference. Are you saying it was a waking dream? Or are you saying it may have been a waking dream? I have already said it may have been a waking dream however I have also said I believe it was a ghost. I believe it was a ghost just as you it seems believe it was a waking dream. Both are what the other believes without having proof of either.

Again, not hypocritical at all.

yawha

Ok, I'm not going to read all the posts in this thread.

But why do you believe it was a ghost?

And for that matter, what is a ghost exactly?

And like, why believe it was anything? Why not just have no belief towards it and say you don't know what it was?

marti8

Dave! wrote: »

errr... where are you getting that from? Just because there are two possibilities doesn't mean that they're equally likely. We have demonstrable objective scientific evidence to support the natural explanation, whereas the ghost explanation is supported by anecdotes, goes against all that we currently know about the world and how it works, and requires the introduction of a whole new phenomenon with no basis in science.

So, when you say the two possibilities are equal, you're really just plucking that from the sky, right? The possibility with all the science behind it is probably more likely?

Well, I am saying both are equal until one is proven. I cannot prove I saw a ghost, others cannot prove what I experienced was say a waking dream or a misfiring in the brain or for that matter someone from an alternate dimension or from the future. So in that sense until one is proven all are equal, yes.

marti8

yawha wrote: »

Ok, I'm not going to read all the posts in this thread.

But why do you believe it was a ghost?

And for that matter, what is a ghost exactly?

And like, why believe it was anything? Why not just have no belief towards it and say you don't know what it was?

I believe it was a ghost because it fits the parameters of what is generally called a "ghost". What is a ghost? I don't know, I'm agnostic on that. I can guess but that is all it would be, a guess.

But I don't know what it was, I explained earlier on in this post that I use the word "ghost" as it fits the paramters, that's all. To that end I call it a "ghost". And my guess on what they are? Some type of energy or remnant of once living people. That would be my guess.

marti8

Gotta head now folks, nice chatting again.

CiaranMT

marti8 wrote: »

Tut, tut, tut. Self restraint is a virtue

^
Reads like a tacit admission to me.

yawha

marti8 wrote: »

I believe it was a ghost because it fits the parameters of what is generally called a "ghost". What is a ghost? I don't know, I'm agnostic on that. I can guess but that is all it would be, a guess.

But I don't know what it was, I explained earlier on in this post that I use the word "ghost" as it fits the paramters, that's all. To that end I call it a "ghost". And my guess on what they are? Some type of energy or remnant of once living people. That would be my guess.

Why guess? Why not just say "I don't know"?

King Mob

marti8 wrote: »

While you can show that in some circumstances your conclusions offer one possible answer, it remains just that, one possible answer.

And it's the only one of the two explanations that can bee shown to actually happen.

marti8 wrote: »

I think you put too much faith in Occams Razor. Because something has less of a chance of happening or for being the cause of something hppening doesn't in of itself negate other possibilities.

But neither you or I have any reason it is something other that the simplest explanation. You don't have anything to exclude the rational, non-childish explanations, nor do you have anything to suggest that the magic, childish explanation is more likely.

marti8 wrote: »

You are negating my explanations, I am not negating yours. Iam saying I "believe" what I saw was a so-called "ghost" you are saying no, it wasnn't. You seem to be responding to a possibility with an absolute. Simply because according to you and others something has less of a chance of being so doesn't negate that it is so.

Actually I've been saying it's not likely to be a ghost.

And I'm saying that it's less likely because you have to assume some silly, unknowable things to form an explanation equal to the sane one which makes no silly assumptions

marti8 wrote: »

Yes, of course it can equally apply to elves, fairies, good Fianna Failers and a god. However each individual will reach each conclusion by themselves. As I said before I am atheist, that being I don't believe in a god, however I do not say god doesn't exist. I do believe in ghosts however I do not say ghosts do exist. So, no, not contradictory in the least.

Well then since there's all manner of people who claim to talk directly to God, he must exist, right?

But I think I see what you're problem is: you don't actually understand the differences between believing something exists and wanting something to exist....

liamw

yawha wrote: »

Why guess? Why not just say "I don't know"?

Because convincing yourself it was a ghost is far more exciting than any boring natural explanation or admitting you don't know.

Zombrex

marti8 wrote: »

Probably wasn't from your perspective.

Well yes, but then my perspective is the non-silly one

The existence of ghosts would require a lot of biology to be different to how it appears to be. This is rather unlikely.

Perhaps you disagree, but I suspect not. You don't for example believe magic fairies make your hair dryer work, since you know it is an electrical charge heating air that is fanned towards your head.

That is the most likely explanation for how the hot air gets on your head. It could be magic fairies, but it probably isn't.

marti8 wrote: »

Stupid? Again from your perspective, not mine.

Again I think if it was anything else, or someone else, you would agree that it was a stupid conclusion. I suspect emotion is clouding your judgement with this particular case.

marti8 wrote: »

Again, the simplest explanation isn't by definition or by default the correct explanation. This is a mistake many seem to make.

It is not a question of simple, it a question of an idea that works with current knowledge and an idea that doesn't work with current knowledge, and in fact if true would invalidate a lot current knowledge.

If you say that it is magic fairies that make your hair dryer work that means the current theory of electro-magnatism is wrong. That is unlikely given how well supported it is. It is more likely magic fairies are not in your hair dryer.

Same with you believing to see a ghost. If that is true current theories of physics and biology are completely wrong. That is unlikely. It is more likely you didn't see a ghost but think you did based on a desire for that to be true and the cultural influences that provide a history in human culture for ghost stories.

marti8 wrote: »

No, I am using the word "ghost" as that is the generally accepted description. By all means call it whatever you want.

I wouldn't call it anything, since I have no physical evidence to base any assessment on. Ghost means a spirit of consciousness that is etheral and disembodied. If you didn't mean ghost then don't call it a ghost.

marti8 wrote: »

I have never said it was a ghost, I have said I believe it was a ghost. There is a difference.

Only if you tend to believe things you don't have any confidence in. Surely the same logic you would use to state to others it was a ghost is the logic you use to convince yourself of the correctness of this assessment.

marti8 wrote: »

Are you saying it was a waking dream? Or are you saying it may have been a waking dream?

I don't have enough evidence to make an assessment of what it was. A waking dream is more likely than a ghost, since waking dream is a known and explained biological phenomena, disembodied spirits aren't.

marti8 wrote: »

I have already said it may have been a waking dream however I have also said I believe it was a ghost.

You seem to be saying now you have no confidence in that belief, or that you have no reasoning behind it, at least none that would allow you to state it was a ghost.

This raises the question why you believe something that you yourself have no confidence in?

marti8 wrote: »

I believe it was a ghost just as you it seems believe it was a waking dream. Both are what the other believes without having proof of either.

Again, not hypocritical at all.

It is hypocritical to state that we should acknowledge what we don't know while at the same time express a belief of something that you don't have any confidence in, and thus do not feel confidence in saying you know it is the case.

Undergod

I don't outright reject the existence of everything considered supernatural, though I do tend towards doubt on every such topic I can think of. I would, however, say that I deny the existence of the supernatural, in that I don't think the word supernatural can be used to describe anything that exists.

If ghosts, to take an example of something that is considered supernatural, do in fact exist, then they must be able to interact with physical material. If they interact with physical matter, then they must be subject to physical laws- therefore they are natural, not supernatural.

Even a human seeing them counts as interacting with physical objects. And they may very well operate under physical laws we don't yet know or understand (though I must stress, I don't think this is the case, nor is their any reason I know of to think it is the case), but they are still subject to them.

If they don't follow any natural laws, then they can't interact with anything, so I don't think they can be said to exist in any meaningful way.