30 Oct 09
Originally posted by generalissimoIt depends what you mean by 'couldn't explain it'. If you decide that it is a ghost and that ghost exists, then either:
suppose something happened to you and other people who were with you in that moment (like a ghost or poltergeist), and you couldn't explain it, would you change your views or would just think you've gone insane?
1. You have explained it, and it is not supernatural but simply a previously undiscovered physical phenomena.
or
2. You in fact have no clue as to what the explanation is and are ashamed or afraid to admit it so you hide behind the 'ghost' explanation because references to the supernatural sound like explanations (but aren't really) and you can probably convince others and maybe even yourself that the problem has gone away.
I on the other hand do not put much stock in stories of ghosts so would probably not consider them as my first point of investigation when trying to explain the phenomena. If I saw Santa walking down the street, my first thought would not be "So he exists after all! Hold on, let me get my list!"
31 Oct 09
Originally posted by TerrierJack"My father was not an atheist but he said to me many times "Don't worry about dead people, it is the live ones you need to watch out for!""
My father was not an atheist but he said to me many times "Don't worry about dead people, it is the live ones you need to watch out for!"
I have to concur. I have never seen anything that couldn't be explained by some agency in the 'natural' world. Which is not to say that I am absolutely certain that angels aren't dancing on the surface on my compu ...[text shortened]... l your neighbor is crazy when he tells you he had a conversation with the Queen of Venus?
Lol.
31 Oct 09
Originally posted by josephwYou are mistaken in your definition. An atheist is one who does not believe in a god, some atheists do believe in other supernatural entities. Scientific education and belief in the scientific process is not required for atheism. There may be strong correlations between scientific education and atheism but that is not the same as the definition.
By definition, an atheist can't believe in the supernatural.
There has to be a scientific explanation for paranormal activity, according to the atheist.
However, as I have said in this thread already, a logical person cannot believe in the supernatural because the supernatural is illogical by definition, just as 'paranormal' is. If the paranormal exists then it is normal.
For some reason they remind me of a poem:
As I Was Walking Down The Stair,
I Met A Man Who Wasn't There,
He Wasn't There Again Today
O how I wish he'd go away.
Sorry I don't know who wrote it or what the full version is.
31 Oct 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadI on the other hand do not put much stock in stories of ghosts so would probably not consider them as my first point of investigation when trying to explain the phenomena. If I saw Santa walking down the street, my first thought would not be "So he exists after all! Hold on, let me get my list!"
It depends what you mean by 'couldn't explain it'. If you decide that it is a ghost and that ghost exists, then either:
1. You have explained it, and it is not supernatural but simply a previously undiscovered physical phenomena.
or
2. You in fact have no clue as to what the explanation is and are ashamed or afraid to admit it so you hide behind the 'g ...[text shortened]... et, my first thought would not be "So he exists after all! Hold on, let me get my list!"
Ok, let me put it this way:
you are in your room with a friend, you and your friend see (clearly) a figure just outside the room, you two go look to see who this stranger is, and what he is doing there, only to find out that there was nobody there after all.
what would your reaction be?
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 27978
31 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by generalissimoWe had just seen the Flash, the Scarlet Speedster. Barry Allen! (Or maybe Wally West or Bart Allen?)
[b]I on the other hand do not put much stock in stories of ghosts so would probably not consider them as my first point of investigation when trying to explain the phenomena. If I saw Santa walking down the street, my first thought would not be "So he exists after all! Hold on, let me get my list!"
Ok, let me put it this way:
you are in your ...[text shortened]... g there, only to find out that there was nobody there after all.
what would your reaction be?[/b]
31 Oct 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadbecause he's clearly not taking it seriously.
You clearly give more credit to one set of explanations than another. Why?
just because atheist live in denial of anything they can't explain it doesn't mean these things don't exist, nor is it very mature to make ridiculous suggestions about what these things are.
31 Oct 09
Originally posted by generalissimoIf only I saw it then I would think that perhaps I was mistaken. If we all saw it as per your scenario then I would consider a number of possibilities - none of which would include 'the supernatural' as I have already pointed out that that is inherently illogical.
you are in your room with a friend, you and your friend see (clearly) a figure just outside the room, you two go look to see who this stranger is, and what he is doing there, only to find out that there was nobody there after all.
what would your reaction be?
I might consider it to be some weird phenomena as yet unknown to science, but I think I would consider a number of other more likely scenarios first.
You don't actually give the reasons why I would know that "there was nobody there after all". In the scenario, can I see sufficiently far that no normal human could have got away in the time it took for me to get to the door? Are there no hiding places near by?
Even if all the simple explanations are exhausted (a friend playing a trick on me, mushrooms in the food etc), I would consider a mad scientist in a super suit just as likely an explanation as a ghost, angel or other popular character from fairy tale land.
It is an interesting topic because the illogicality of the supernatural is one that theists must either face or turn a blind eye too. Further anyone who believes in phenomena typically labeled 'supernatural', must ask the obvious question - why is it apparently undetectable to science ie when a scientist does a study on the phenomena, no such phenomena is observed. If we are talking about ghost or angels for example, do they somehow know when a scientific study is taking place and take precautions?
31 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou don't actually give the reasons why I would know that "there was nobody there after all". In the scenario, can I see sufficiently far that no normal human could have got away in the time it took for me to get to the door? Are there no hiding places near by?
If only I saw it then I would think that perhaps I was mistaken. If we all saw it as per your scenario then I would consider a number of possibilities - none of which would include 'the supernatural' as I have already pointed out that that is inherently illogical.
I might consider it to be some weird phenomena as yet unknown to science, but I think I wou ample, do they somehow know when a scientific study is taking place and take precautions?
its just a common medium-sized house, no hiding places.
Even if all the simple explanations are exhausted (a friend playing a trick on me, mushrooms in the food etc), I would consider a mad scientist in a super suit just as likely an explanation as a ghost, angel or other popular character from fairy tale land
is it fair of me to suggest your personal bias might interfere with any open minded discussion about this phenomenon?
why is it apparently undetectable to science ie when a scientist does a study on the phenomena, no such phenomena is observed. If we are talking about ghost or angels for example, do they somehow know when a scientific study is taking place and take precautions?
I don't the answer to these questions, but everytime someone uses science or experiments to detect what these things are , they're immediately ridiculed.
01 Nov 09
Originally posted by twhitehead"...a logical person cannot believe in the supernatural because the supernatural is illogical by definition,.."
You are mistaken in your definition. An atheist is one who does not believe in a god, some atheists do believe in other supernatural entities. Scientific education and belief in the scientific process is not required for atheism. There may be strong correlations between scientific education and atheism but that is not the same as the definition.
Howeve ...[text shortened]... O how I wish he'd go away.
Sorry I don't know who wrote it or what the full version is.
It's just a word used to describe that which is unseen. Just because one can't sense that which is not seen, doesn't mean it's not there.
What makes you so sure there isn't anything beyond the realm of your senses?
01 Nov 09
2 edits
I have talked to athests who have encountered such phenomenon, and it did not change their atheism. I have also encountered those of faith that have fumbled onto such phenomenon that changed their view of the spiritual world. One such person did not really believe in demon possession even though they belived in God, until confronted by someone acting very strangly. The kicker was he noticed they were levitating off the floor. He said that he then proceeded to pee his pants. He was very careful as to who to tell the story to. He only shared it with those who in such possibilites.
01 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadAt the risk of sounding contreversial again, I would venture to say "yes", 'ghosts' and other such entities can take precautions on how they interact with people.
If only I saw it then I would think that perhaps I was mistaken. If we all saw it as per your scenario then I would consider a number of possibilities - none of which would include 'the supernatural' as I have already pointed out that that is inherently illogical.
I might consider it to be some weird phenomena as yet unknown to science, but I think I wou ample, do they somehow know when a scientific study is taking place and take precautions?
Thats why, in my limited research anyway, such 'visitations' are not verifiable by science. Ie. science only recognizes those tests are are easily repeatable.
Perhaps these entities 'live' outside of normal time and therefore can appear and dissapear as they wish... (OK, get out the big guns and fire away! 🙂 )
02 Nov 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadthe "laws of the universe" can be violated: it is our flawed understanding of them that gets disproved by some phenomenon. once that happens we simply need to ammend the books.
I have argued before that the word "supernatural" is little more than an attempt to confuse/misdirect or otherwise hide a problem.
If a phenomena exists then why label it 'supernatural'? Surely you cannot be saying that it violates the laws of physics as that is logically impossible (the laws of physics are defined as being inviolate).
So what does one ...[text shortened]... ake up the rules so don't question me', or even worse 'it doesn't have to make sense'.