Hey you Atheist... Explain ghosts!

[QUOTE="FLSTS"]

[QUOTE="Wings_008"]oh Ghosts, okay that's an easy one : THEY DON'T EXIST!Wings_008

bit hard to explain something that very little is know about, or as far as we know does not exist.

prove the pictures, EPV, and videos here that they're wrong, then there would be no proof of its existence.FLSTS

I don't see how atheism and ghosts must be mutually exclusive.

I don't see how atheism and ghosts must be mutually exclusive.

one_plum

People forget the only definition of Atheist is a lack of belief in a God or Gods, outside of that is dependant on the person.

[QUOTE="one_plum"]

I don't see how atheism and ghosts must be mutually exclusive.

AnnoyedDragon

People forget the only definition of Atheist is a lack of belief in a God or Gods, outside of that is dependant on the person.

yeah! That'll show them Atheists!!!!! Not being able to explain the existence of ghosts PROVES there's a God!!!! YEAAA!!!!hamstergeddon

Actually, the dictionary definition (OED) is the belief there is no God. So, if you go by proper vernacular, most 'atheists' are not really atheists.Vandalvideo

Flawed definition if you ask me.

I don't need belief to think unicorns don't exist, I don't need belief to think dragons don't exist, most people wouldn't challenge that. Yet people have placed special rules to the idea of a God were thinking there isn't one = a belief, because apparently rejecting the idea of a God requires more faith than rejecting any other mythological character.

Flawed definition if you ask me.I don't need belief to think unicorns don't exist, I don't need belief to think dragons don't exist, most people wouldn't challenge that. Yet people have placed special rules to the idea of a God were thinking there isn't one = a belief, because apparently rejecting the idea of a God requires more faith than rejecting any other mythological character.AnnoyedDragon

And yes, rejecting something requires just as much if not more faith as believing in something.Vandalvideo

If there is absolutely no evidence to support something, why does it require more faith to reject its existence than to accept it? That sounds like a load of creationist nonsense.

Science is about expanding the knowledge of human kind, there is nothing to gain chasing after every idea someone decided to pull out of their backside. They are making the claim, the burden of evidence is on them. If they are unable to present that evidence then there is no justifiable reason to 'waste' time and resources on that subject.

Clearly it takes more faith to believe in something without evidence, especially when it contradicts all other evidence.

[QUOTE="Wings_008"][QUOTE="FLSTS"]He asked for you to explain, not state.

FLSTS

If there is absolutely no evidence to support something, why does it require more faith to reject its existence than to accept it? That sounds like a load of creationist nonsense. Science is about expanding the knowledge of human kind, there is nothing to gain chasing after every idea someone decided to pull out of their backside. They are making the claim, the burden of evidence is on them. If they are unable to present that evidence then there is no justifiable reason to 'waste' time and resources on that subject.Clearly it takes more faith to believe in something without evidence, especially when it contradicts all other evidence.AnnoyedDragon

Lack of evidence to justify something is not justification to say that thing does not exist. When you say something does not exist, you are making a definite claim about it. Just as you ask the believer to prove their beliefs, you need to prove that it is not so. You can challenge their beliefs with evidence, but the claim that it does not exist is a claim just the same that needs proving. Like I said, it is the height of hubris to say that something is not the case without proof. The lack of proof for is not proof against.Vandalvideo

Thankfully the world doesn't operate that way, if it did we would still be in the dark ages arguing over every ridiculous claim every town fool decided to blurp out. By your very argument I could make up a supernatural being right now and you would be in the wrong for not automatically believing in it, because you cannot prove it doesn't exist.

Hopefully this video will get across how impractical that line of thought is.

Thankfully the world doesn't operate that way, if it did we would still be in the dark ages arguing over every ridiculous claim every town fool decided to blurp out. By your very argument I could make up a supernatural being right now and you would be in the wrong for not automatically believing in it, because you cannot prove it doesn't exist.Hopefully will get across how impractical that line of thought is.AnnoyedDragon

They aren't real. How about that?

Impractical or not, its logical. I can also answer all objections to that video as well. The fact remains that my point of view does not preach lack of insight or research. If anything, it promotes ultimate research. It promotes researching everything down to the wire, even accepted scientific norms. It is one of the reasons I have such a plethora of knowledge in so many different fields. By saying "I must proof X is not the case" and "I must prove X is the case", I do not accept haphazardly conclusions without doing as much research as humanly possible. For to say that I cannot know if X is the case is to be just as presumptuous as those I'm trying to avoid. If anything, my view is the best means of intellectual inquiry. Vandalvideo

Considering the video is 6 minutes long I don't think you bothered to watch it.

I think we will agree to disagree, quite frankly I think your way of thinking wastes valuable time and resources that would be better spent actually progressing civilization; rather than investigating every ridiculous claim.

Considering the video is 6 minutes long I don't think you bothered to watch it. I think we will agree to disagree, quite frankly I think your way of thinking wastes valuable time and resources that would be better spent actually progressing civilization; rather than investigating every ridiculous claim.AnnoyedDragon

Just something I wanted to know from anAtheist's point of view...

Steameffekt

[QUOTE="leperphiliac"][QUOTE="Steameffekt"]

Explain this

Steameffekt

It never gives up inquiry, never accepts half answers, and will never accept dogma as truth.Vandalvideo

You say you will never accept dogma as truth, yet you have spent this time criticising my position for essentially not taking dogma seriously.

You bring up Galileo as an example, so you are basically equating Galileo's position as being the same as the claims I speak of. I think there must be a mistake/misunderstanding here, Galileo was simply reporting what the evidence told him, the subjects I speak of offer 'no' evidence at all.

Galileo is a poor example when the claims I am criticising are essentially stuff people can make up on the spot.

Just something I wanted to know from anAtheist's point of view...

Steameffekt

You say you will never accept dogma as truth, yet you have spent this time criticising my position for essentially not taking dogma seriously.You bring up Galileo as an example, so you are basically equating Galileo's position as being the same as the claims I speak of. I think there must be a mistake/misunderstanding here, Galileo was simply reporting what the evidence told him, the subjects I speak of offer 'no' evidence at all. Galileo is a poor example when the claims I am criticising are essentially stuff people can make up on the spot.AnnoyedDragon

You have five senses. Somatosensory (touch), vision, hearing, gustation (taste), and olfactory (smell). In a normal person all of those senses remain separate. Therefore, when you see something rest assured that everyone else can too, as can cameras.

Now if you're trying to suggest that there's a "sixth sense" that we don't know about, stop. For obvious reasons there is no such thing as a sixth sense because if there was we would most certainly be aware of it (otherwise it's not much of a sense is it?). And in this case I'd say it's fairly safe to say that we'd be well aware of a sense that gives us visual information.

gameguy6700

I'm not criticizing you for not accepting dogma as truth. I'm criticizing you for dogmatically denying dogma as truth. You are dogmatically clinging to the belief that there is no god, or atleast you have presented the argument in such a way as that is what a reasonable person would interpret your post to mean. Besides, I'm amazed at your hubris in saying there is no evidence for religion. How do you know you haven't merely done inaddequate research, future evidence won't present itself, or the evidence is currently being hoarded by an individual? You see, by claiming there is no evidence, you ignore these very real possibilities. It is a dogmatic belief you hold. I demand evidence. And Gallileo is a prime example of my point. Even the scientific community, in their dogmatic beliefs, will shirk the truth for pragmatic benefits. Your view is just as dangerous. It is strictly sophist.Vandalvideo

Galileo is a bad example because the so called scientific community at that time didn't follow the scientific method, they rejected the evidence he brought forward because they operated on belief; not evidence.

Beliefs right now you are saying I am in the wrong for not taking seriously, that I am in the wrong for not investing time and resources in before saying with confidence are wrong.

You want to pay out hundreds/thousands for equipment and spend weeks of monitoring before telling a child there isn't a monster under his bed, be my guest. I'd rather see it put into cancer research; but that's just my flawed way of thinking.

Galileo is a bad example because the so called scientific community at that time didn't follow the scientific method, they rejected the evidence he brought forward because they operated on belief; not evidence.AnnoyedDragon

Beliefs right now you are saying I am in the wrong for not taking seriously, that I am in the wrong for not investing time and resources in before saying with confidence are wrong.

You want to pay out hundreds/thousands for equipment and spend weeks of monitoring before telling a child there isn't a monster under his bed, be my guest. I'd rather see it put into cancer research; but that's just my flawed way of thinking.

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

[QUOTE="one_plum"]

I don't see how atheism and ghosts must be mutually exclusive.

Vandalvideo

People forget the only definition of Atheist is a lack of belief in a God or Gods, outside of that is dependant on the person.

Sure, why not? Merely because you find the idea of a monster under his bed silly does not mean there isn't a monster under his bed. Again, your own idea of reality is just as presumptuous as the religious people.Vandalvideo

Why don't we just flush all our R&D money down the toilet while we are at it? We would get the same result, I'm sure the 3rd world and sick people won't mind.

Let's just agree to disagree, I can see this is going nowhere.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"] Sure, why not? Merely because you find the idea of a monster under his bed silly does not mean there isn't a monster under his bed. Again, your own idea of reality is just as presumptuous as the religious people.AnnoyedDragon

Why don't we just flush all our R&D money down the toilet while we are at it? We would get the same result, I'm sure the 3rd world and sick people won't mind.

Let's just agree to disagree, I can see this is going nowhere.

It seems to me that you are being presumptuous in your denial.Vandalvideo

Seems to me you need to get your priorities straight...

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]It seems to me that you are being presumptuous in your denial.AnnoyedDragon

Seems to me you need to get your priorities straight...

Thats what a true skeptic does. They question even the questioning. Vandalvideo

I agree with this. That's intellectual honesty. Even if something is prove to be true at the present moment doesn't necessary mean it will stay that way in the future. I heard that all it takes is one research to debunk a well-establish scientific theory. While in real life it takes a whole of evidence and further research to do so, nevertheless it is that very first step in disapproving it in the first place that matters.

Sometimes I do wander if it is easier to tell people just to believe in established truth than to ask them to keep an open mind...

I'm sorry, I didn't know that seeking the truth wasn't virtuous. I guess I should go slap Aristotle now.Vandalvideo

Truth is important, but it has to be prioritized.

Quality of life, saving lives, betterment of civilization...

By all means go closet monster hunting, but don't do so at the expensive of something like treating cancer or growing sustainable food sources.

Time and resources are finite, distribute them too much and you hurt progress.

[QUOTE="Brainkiller05"]Ghosts don't exists Steameffekt

Explain this

I LOL

Can't say I've ever believed in ghosts, the supernatural, or even souls.

Just something I wanted to know from anAtheist's point of view...

Steameffekt

[QUOTE="Steameffekt"]

[QUOTE="Brainkiller05"]Ghosts don't exists sensfan02

Explain this

I LOL

[QUOTE="HomicidalCherry"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

God has been proven to exist

Snipes_2

Really? I missed the memo on that one. Since when has God's existence been proven beyond a reasonable doubt by evidence (and I mean hard evidence, not the fact that I exist or some crap like that).

I'm not going to start a Religious Debate with you, it's pointless. I've already argued this point time and again on these forums.

It is pointless because you don't have hard evidence that God exist.

Oh one more thing, I fine it so funny when humanity thought when it rained it was God crying, and when we had thunder storms, we thought God was mad.

Science has disproved both of these theories, and religious people agreed over time. And now, every passing day scientist find more and more evidence that there is no God, but people neglect them because they don't what to know the truth.

And now, every passing day scientist find more and more evidence that there is no God, but people neglect them because they don't what to know the truth.sensfan02

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

[QUOTE="HomicidalCherry"]

Really? I missed the memo on that one. Since when has God's existence been proven beyond a reasonable doubt by evidence (and I mean hard evidence, not the fact that I exist or some crap like that).

sensfan02

I'm not going to start a Religious Debate with you, it's pointless. I've already argued this point time and again on these forums.

It is pointless because you don't have hard evidence that God exist.

Oh one more thing, I fine it so funny when humanity thought when it rained it was God crying, and when we had thunder storms, we thought God was mad.

Science has disproved both of these theories, and religious people agreed over time. And now, every passing day scientist find more and more evidence that there is no God, but people neglect them because they don't what to know the truth.

Actually that last sentence is reminiscent of people who don't want to believe. I gave "Hard Evidence", read my other posts.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]I'm sorry, I didn't know that seeking the truth wasn't virtuous. I guess I should go slap Aristotle now.AnnoyedDragon

Truth is important, but it has to be prioritized.

Quality of life, saving lives, betterment of civilization...

By all means go closet monster hunting, but don't do so at the expensive of something like treating cancer or growing sustainable food sources.

Time and resources are finite, distribute them too much and you hurt progress.

How many resources are required for our plasma televisions, video-games consoles, iPods, iPhones, laptops, ect, that could be better used to search for the truth? Much of our resources goes to petty diversions that you and I both use on a daily basis, but which ultimately prevent us from further helping impoverished nations suffering from famine and unsanitary conditions.

They don't exist until proven else :P

[QUOTE="Steameffekt"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

What's to explain? Ghosts don't exist.

Velocitas8

(PIC)

Yup, the truth.