Atheists - A Question...

[HonestJoe]

“No evidence”?
Then explain this….
Lincoln's ghost - Wikipedia
…and thousands of others that many respectable people have experienced.

What exactly are you asserting any of that is evidence of though? All you have is a series of events and experiences that some people have attributed to the ghost of a particular individual, though apparently without any of them even trying to explain the mechanism by which such a thing is even possible. You're asking me to explain it yet you're not offering any explanation yourself.

Much like the OP hypothetical, there is an almost infinite range of possible causes for these claims and experiences (and in this case, probably multiple different ones in different cases, even if there was an actual ghost). Some are more likely than others based on current understanding, and several could be easily explained by simple and mundane explanations (dreaming, pareidolia, misinterpreting mundane sounds, making it up for some reason etc.).

That certainly doesn't mean there isn't a ghost, but there is no more evidence for that explanation than any other possibility (especially with the lack of any formal hypothesis for "ghosts") and it certainly isn't evidence for the existence of the "spiritual" or "supernatural" (again, especially if those terms aren't meaningfully defined or hypothesised).

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

That certainly doesn't mean there isn't a ghost, but there is no more evidence for that explanation than any other possibility (especially with the lack of any formal hypothesis for "ghosts") and it certainly isn't evidence for the existence of the "spiritual" or "supernatural" (again, especially if those terms aren't meaningfully defined or hypothesised).

The only thing is words are used to distinguish things. Without them, dialog can be complicated.

I always assumed 'supernatural' to be meant in the etymological sense of 'super' and 'natural':

super | Etymology, origin and meaning of super by etymonline
+
natural | Etymology, origin and meaning of natural by etymonline
=
supernatural | Etymology, origin and meaning of supernatural by etymonline

This would make the word 'spiritual' synonymous with it but specifying ideas and lifeforms of energy/light (electromagnetism?), i.e., the soul or conscience as well as chakra or auras.

I would argue that these things can easily be demonstrated as existing, Joe. Albeit, the only evidence is within the whacky heads of a bunch of hairless apes.
Miracles are quite evidently real. Demonstrated if by nothing else, the Fermi Paradox and five mass extinctions that life on Earth has somehow eked its way out of.

What say you? We hairless apes should see if we can't give it a go with round 6, eh? Keep mass producing with Planned Obsolescence at the helm? Miracles Shmear-a-culls! Bah-humbug!

Edit: had link to 'nature' rather than the current 'natural' etymonline link.

 

[Alien826]

Good deeds!

No good deed goes unpunished.

Edit: I suppose that would make good deeds befall in the 'stupidity' category. Doing good is stupid, because evil will intelligently take advantage of it every time.

I said "human failing" so good deeds wouldn't count.

Incidentally, I don't agree that good deeds get punished. That saying is sometimes true, but not always.

I would say the stupid attempt to do good deeds that aren't carefully planned can do more harm than good.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

I said "human failing" so good deeds wouldn't count.

Incidentally, I don't agree that good deeds get punished. That saying is sometimes true, but not always.

I would say the stupid attempt to do good deeds that aren't carefully planned can do more harm than good.

Ah, but I would beg "To err is humane; To forgive, Divine." - Alexander Pope

And I would rather be found a stupid naive than cunning recluse. Though I'm afraid the latter may be more descriptive of myself.

 

[Alien826]

I agree with what many have said already. "Supernatural" is self contradictory.

Lets define "existence" as "everything that exists". If you try to define something as outside that, it can't exist, by definition. That doesn't exclude gods, goblins and ghosts (nice alliteration, hey?) it just says that, if they exist, they are part of "existence".

Who cares, you say? Well, "supernatural" tends to block off any investigation in those areas by "science", and theists and others defend the idea because it allows them to claim that such things are not possible to investigate scientifically.

That's not to say that "supernatural" things are any more or less likely with this viewpoint.

 

[F1fan]

“No evidence”?
Then explain this….
Lincoln's ghost - Wikipedia
…and thousands of others that many respectable people have experienced.

Well then, now that I've read about this and if I ever tour the White House and hear a noise I will surely attribute it to Lincoln's ghost. I'll be one of the thousands of "witnesses".

Me: Did you hear that noise, it must be Lincoln's ghost.

Tour guide: No sir, that's a vacuum being used down the hall.

Me: Don't tell me what it is, I know Lincoln's ghost when I hear it.

 

[HonestJoe]

I always assumed 'supernatural' to be meant in the etymological sense of 'super' and 'natural':

Yes, that would be my general interpretation (the issue here is the nPeace appears to want to use an entirely different definition for some reason).

The problem with the standard definition is that it doesn't seem to have any purpose. What even would be the hard dividing line between "natural" and "supernatural", especially when in practice they'd be closely interacting and combining? I think it is clear that the term came to the fore to support religious beliefs in the face of rapidly developing scientific understanding of the universe, the purpose being to present an imaginary barrier preventing those beliefs from being studied scientifically (and potentially challenged or even disproven).

This would make the word 'spiritual' synonymous with it but specifying ideas and lifeforms of energy/light (electromagnetism?), i.e., the soul or conscience as well as chakra or auras.

I would argue that these things can easily be demonstrated as existing, Joe.

If they could be easily demonstrated, you wouldn't need to argue . You're jumping the gun though; You can't demonstrate something exists until you specifically define what it is, and thus the consequences we'd expect to see if it does exist. It seems you're not even clear on what you're talking about (and isn't electromagnetism "natural" anyway?).

Albeit, the only evidence is within the whacky heads of a bunch of hairless apes.

Do you mean in the way everything we know is in our minds by definition or are you proposing there is some element of "spiritual" that somehow renders it incapable of presenting evidence other than directly to human minds?

Miracles are quite evidently real. Demonstrated if by nothing else, the Fermi Paradox and five mass extinctions that life on Earth has somehow eked its way out of.

Again, it depends on how you're defining the term. "Miracle" is commonly used to describe events that are highly unlikely and unexpected but they're still "natural", which seems to be the kind of thing you're referring to here (and our instinctive perceptions of probabilities are commonly flawed anyway).

Then there are thinks that we (individually or as a species) didn't think were possible but actually were. That's just a function of our ignorance and obviously doesn't mean the event was actually "miraculous" or not "natural".

The third possibility would be things that literally would be entirely impossible within "natural" operations and thus requires some form of external influence. Of course, that brings us back to the question of why such an influence wouldn't just be considered part of that wider system, part of what we call "natural". On what basis would we need or want to imagine some intellectual barrier dividing the "natural" and "supernatural" in the first place? All that really matters is "exists" or "doesn't exist".

 

[F1fan]

I agree with what many have said already. "Supernatural" is self contradictory.

Lets define "existence" as "everything that exists". If you try to define something as outside that, it can't exist, by definition. That doesn't exclude gods, goblins and ghosts (nice alliteration, hey?) it just says that, if they exist, they are part of "existence".

Who cares, you say? Well, "supernatural" tends to block off any investigation in those areas by "science", and theists and others defend the idea because it allows them to claim that such things are not possible to investigate scientifically.

That's not to say that "supernatural" things are any more or less likely with this viewpoint.

This is the telling thig. Believers claim to have "experiences" that non-believers just don't get. Really? It's not self-deception, which is likley? It's not people being influenced by their social learning that religious concetps are true, and the evolutionary pressure to adopt social norms and conform isn't at work here?

The way believers describe their believed phenomenon as supernatural is on par with imaginary. How can they, as ordinary mortals, know their experiences are true as they believe it? They can't, they fall back on the dubious "faith" excuse, that was also used by the 9-11 hijackers to justify their acts for God. For the average believer to use "faith" as a justification for their beliefs and practices they must also, by default, accept the justification for the 9-11 hijackers, ISIS, and any other extremist who uses faith. That is their reality, they use it in their arguments, then they are all lumped into the same category, including the criminal acts against humanity. If they don't like being associated with faith-based criminals, then stop using faith as an excuse to believe in anything. Reason is a reliable tool for a reason: it works.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

I think it is clear that the term came to the fore to support religious beliefs in the face of rapidly developing scientific understanding of the universe, the purpose being to present an imaginary barrier preventing those beliefs from being studied scientifically (and potentially challenged or even disproven).

Agreed, I would add the opinion that such ambiguity of language could have been adopted primarily to argue against what we recognize as molecular or even quantum realms, that which was once called "Æther" and considered the breath of the gods.

Do you mean in the way everything we know is in our minds by definition or are you proposing there is some element of "spiritual" that somehow renders it incapable of presenting evidence other than directly to human minds? If they could be easily demonstrated, you wouldn't need to argue .

What I mean... Could be analogous to a person suffering from severe schizophrenia is actually seeing and talking to the 'other people' in the room... You and I may find ourselves incapable to interact with or even see their 'friends', but when our hypothetical-mutual-acquaintance is off their meds it is evident that they see people, demonstrable by the conversations with the 'friend'. What you and I call symptoms of a delusional mind, appears as material and evidence of reality to the delusion-induced mind.

 

[AppieB]

I accepted "I don't know". Didn't I?
I accept investigation too. Do you?

Actually you didn't. @Polymath257 came up with a sensible answer and your conclusion was immediately: "Nothing would convince an atheist of what they don't want to believe." As if the presented case schould convince somebody of something.
And you drew the conclusion that therefore every atheist would never be convinced. A little bit premature imho.

Tell me what would be, in your opinon, the proper response/conclusion to your scenario?

 

[Polymath257]

This is the telling thig. Believers claim to have "experiences" that non-believers just don't get. Really? It's not self-deception, which is likley? It's not people being influenced by their social learning that religious concetps are true, and the evolutionary pressure to adopt social norms and conform isn't at work here?

And we can test whether the believers *actually* have perceptions that others do not very simply. Just see if the believers all agree about the properties of their experiences. if they do not, then it is in their imagination (or other cultural and personal factors).

As an example, Dalton, of atomic theory fame, was color blind (an old term for color blindness was Daltonism). he determined this by realizing other people were describing color differences that he did not see. He also realized that these other people were consistent in their color descriptions, even though Dalton himself couldn't detect the differences.

He concluded that he lacked a sensory capability that others had.

If believers want to claim that their perceptions of legitimate and that non-believers are just not seeing things, then they should be bale to show consistent, independent descriptions across the world for their perceptions.

Given the multiplicity of religions, this hypothesis has been shown to be wrong.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

What exactly are you asserting any of that is evidence of though? All you have is a series of events and experiences that some people have attributed to the ghost of a particular individual, though apparently without any of them even trying to explain the mechanism by which such a thing is even possible. You're asking me to explain it yet you're not offering any explanation yourself.

Much like the OP hypothetical, there is an almost infinite range of possible causes for these claims and experiences (and in this case, probably multiple different ones in different cases, even if there was an actual ghost). Some are more likely than others based on current understanding, and several could be easily explained by simple and mundane explanations (dreaming, pareidolia, misinterpreting mundane sounds, making it up for some reason etc.).

That certainly doesn't mean there isn't a ghost, but there is no more evidence for that explanation than any other possibility (especially with the lack of any formal hypothesis for "ghosts") and it certainly isn't evidence for the existence of the "spiritual" or "supernatural" (again, especially if those terms aren't meaningfully defined or hypothesised).

I was talking about shared events / incidents that rational people have experienced. These were shared realities. It doesn’t matter whether these occurrences are explained or not, many saw what seemed to be the same entity at different times.

it wasn’t physical, ie., “in the flesh”; Abe Lincoln’s flesh has rotted by now, no doubt. So how would you define it, other than spiritual?

Plus, I mentioned “thousands of others”.

I have my own understanding of these things, which same understanding is shared by @nPeace and a few others on RF, but explanations are not the point of my posts…. It’s only that some should recognize that these experiences occur, and not just ignore them to support a bias,

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I was talking about shared events / incidents that rational people have experienced. These were shared realities. It doesn’t matter whether these occurrences are explained or not, many saw what seemed to be the same entity at different times.

it wasn’t physical, ie., “in the flesh”; Abe Lincoln’s flesh has rotted by now, no doubt. So how would you define it, other than spiritual?

Has it rotted?

I mean, if we're going to assume that magic is real to allow for the possibility of ghosts, why wouldn't we also allow for the possibility of magical incorruptible flesh and zombies?

You seem to be a bit selective here.

Plus, I mentioned “thousands of others”.

Right: "what our 'evidence' lacks in quality, we make up for in quantity!"

 

[HonestJoe]

I was talking about shared events / incidents that rational people have experienced. These were shared realities. It doesn’t matter whether these occurrences are explained or not, many saw what seemed to be the same entity at different times.

Even as reported, they're not shared experiences though. Over a period of around 100 years, some people saw things, some people heard things and some only felt or sensed something, and that's all before the reports pass through the filter of selective reporting, assumed cause and confirmation bias. There's no reason to assume all those experiences were caused by the same thing, especially given how many of those people would have been aware of the stories of a ghost, and therefore inclined to interpret anything unusual as caused by that.

Again, I'm not saying there can't be a ghost, only that there is no good reason to assume that (or anything else) as a cause without any specific evidence supporting it.

it wasn’t physical, ie., “in the flesh”; Abe Lincoln’s flesh has rotted by now, no doubt. So how would you define it, other than spiritual?

Again, define what exactly? All that we know is a range of people reported a range of different experiences that some attributed to Lincoln's ghost. If you're proposing a specific singular cause for all of those reports, it's on you to define it.

I have my own understanding of these things, which same understanding is shared by @nPeace and a few others on RF, but explanations are not the point of my posts…. It’s only that some should recognize that these experiences occur, and not just ignore them to support a bias,

Nobody is denying the experiences occur (or at least many of them), the issue is the assumption of a specific cause with zero evidential reason. As the OP suggested, the expectation is that some kind of unusual and unexpected event is to be taken as proof for the existence of "the spiritual". If that isn't bias, I don't know what it.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Even as reported, they're not shared experiences though.

You’re right, some are not “shared” experiences. But at least 2 that are mentioned… Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands, and Winston Churchill…. reported seeing Lincoln in his black top hat.

Now, my question is: how do clothes turn into “spirit”? You see, I don’t believe in “afterlife human spirits”.

But something is going on. Some intelligence is there, trying to convince people — at least, some — that there is an afterlife following death.

And almost every religion teaches that falsehood! And they think it’s backed up by evidence! It’s evidence alright, but not of what they think.

Did I totally confuse you & others reading my posts?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Scenario :

You are in the waiting room of a medical facility.
There are about 30 people in the room.
A man enters the main entrance. Stands in the doorway. Looks around the room at everyone, and then leaves.
You see people looking at others, and reacting as if they are having mixed reactions... and some get up and start exiting the room.
You and the few remaining are looking at each other.
You feel it. You are assuming they feel it too.
Feel what? You no longer feel like when you came to the doctor.
Whatever you were experiencing - runny nose / headache / stomach cramps / ___ was gone.
Not wanting to look like an idiot sitting there by yourself (everyone else has left), you get up... to leave.​

Wait a minute.
Maybe you need to see the doctor, to be sure you are fine.
You could say, "Doc. I have... had... this awful pain a few moments ago..."

Atheists... If this happened to you, would this convince you that the spiritual side of life is a reality - that miracles and the supernatural are real?
Or would you attribute it to a 'natural' phenomenon - perhaps associated with some scientific experiment or mind altering technology?

Find out what that panacea is, bottle it, and make millions! Shoot, billions!
Lol

 

[nPeace]

The first living things on earth were single-cell organisms. For three billion years they evolved, diversified, and continued to reproduce (and gave the earth an oxygen atmosphere). When the Cambrian explosion brought larger animals into existence, it didn't end the development of microorganisms. When modern H sap sap arrived some time in the last 100,000 years we as a species came equipped with immune systems that sometimes worked and sometimes didn't, giving rise to concepts like 'the plague'.

Humans in the last century got serious about bacterial warfare, and still are.

In the case of the present Covid epidemic, one theory of its origin is a variety of coronavirus that was capable of crossing over from animals ─ particular attention has been paid to the pangolin ─ to humans, and on at least one occasion did so.

Another theory says it escaped from a Chinese laboratory. That theory implies, but does not show, that Chinese scientists were trying to alter it, presumably to militarize it ─ but there are many innocent reasons why it might have been in a lab, assuming indeed that it ever relevantly was.

If you think God created the first cell capable of self-reproduction, then the only answer to your question is God, who is said to be omnipotent and omniscient, and therefore knew in advance all the consequences of [his] act in so doing.

Otherwise, nature is ultimately responsible, and the supplementary role, if any, of humans is undetermined.

So, if you created gunpowder, and someone used it to 'dynamite' someone home, with them in it, you killed that person... if they die, right?
...based on your 'reasoning'.

 

[Polymath257]

I was talking about shared events / incidents that rational people have experienced. These were shared realities. It doesn’t matter whether these occurrences are explained or not, many saw what seemed to be the same entity at different times.

it wasn’t physical, ie., “in the flesh”; Abe Lincoln’s flesh has rotted by now, no doubt. So how would you define it, other than spiritual?

Runaway imagination combined with priming?

Plus, I mentioned “thousands of others”.

I have my own understanding of these things, which same understanding is shared by @nPeace and a few others on RF, but explanations are not the point of my posts…. It’s only that some should recognize that these experiences occur, and not just ignore them to support a bias,

And to ignore that these experiences were primed and that distorts the results is also a bias.

 

[HonestJoe]

You’re right, some are not “shared” experiences. But at least 2 that are mentioned… Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands, and Winston Churchill…. reported seeing Lincoln in his black top hat.

Now, my question is: how do clothes turn into “spirit”? You see, I don’t believe in “afterlife human spirits”.

Me neither, and that is a good point, given that while the hat is symbolic to his image, a hat generally wouldn't be worn indoors and he wouldn't have been wearing it when he was shot, died or laid in state. If someone was inclined to imagine, believe or claim a sighting of his ghost though, they may well describe the public image.

Incidentally, I'm not at all convinced by the Churchill story in the Wikipedia article given how story-like it is and how it is told in the third person without revealing how anyone else learned about the indent.

But something is going on. Some intelligence is there, trying to convince people — at least, some — that there is an afterlife following death.

Why something and not somethings? Again, we're talking about lots of different incidents, experiences an claims over an around 100 year period. Why would we leap to the conclusion that there must be any singular cause across the board?

Did I totally confuse you & others reading my posts?

Not confused as much as misdirected, but it seems the end-point is essentially the same.

 

[blü 2]

So, if you created gunpowder, and someone used it to 'dynamite' someone home, with them in it, you killed that person... if they die, right?
...based on your 'reasoning'.

To return to your question, where did Covid come from, it came from China. And there it may have crossed over to humans from pangolins, or it may have escaped from a lab, but there's no evidence that any version was genetically altered by Chinese scientists.

So if like Nobel you invent dynamite, and make much more powerful civil and military explosives possible, well, a similar scenario could be claimed for the automobile, couldn't it? In the US "an estimated 42,915 people died in motor vehicle traffic crashes last year [2021]", says NHTSA ─ that's better than 117 a day, and doesn't even require military action.