Do atheist's believe in psychic abilities?

[Jeremy Mason]

I'm willing to bet the vast majority of psychic claims involve money schemes and scams.

Edgar Casey did it freely. Someone tried to use his gift for that purpose but it had a bad effect on him so he only used his gift to help the sick or answer questions about the solder in ww2.

 

[3.14]

can't speak for all atheists but most relize that the mind is able of alot more than people give credit of only problem is there have been alot of scams with it for the last couple a decades. currently the army is testing the posibilaty of the paranormal

 

[Storm]

I'm willing to bet the vast majority of psychic claims involve money schemes and scams.

I believe in 'em, and I agree.

 

[Charred.Atheist]

Just something that I've wondered.

Atheism itself only implies the lack of belief in the divine (God(dess(es))).
However, if an atheist were to continue following the path of logic that led to their apparent lack of faith, since no claim to a psychic ability has stood up to critical evaluation and empirical evidence points to there being no such thing. I would say most real atheists most likely do not "believe" in psychic abilities.

 

[whereismynotecard]

Atheism itself only implies the lack of belief in the divine (God(dess(es))).
However, if an atheist were to continue following the path of logic that led to their apparent lack of faith, since no claim to a psychic ability has stood up to critical evaluation and empirical evidence points to there being no such thing. I would say most real atheists most likely do not "believe" in psychic abilities.

It would depend on why they were an atheist in the first place probably... You could be an atheist and still believe in Psychics... I don't, but someone might.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

I believe in 'em, and I agree.

are you an atheist? If you are I would like to talk about this in greater detail.

 

[Storm]

No, I'm not.

 

[Fluffy]

Some do, some don't.

Those who do either reject God for some reason other than a need for evidence or believe there is more evidence for psychic abilities than God.

I would say most real atheists...

Do they hang out with the true Christians (TM)?

 

[Charred.Atheist]

Some do, some don't.

Those who do either reject God for some reason other than a need for evidence or believe there is more evidence for psychic abilities than God.


Do they hang out with the true Christians (TM)?

Atheism itself only implies the lack of belief in the divine (God(dess(es))).
However, if an atheist were to continue following the path of logic that led to their apparent lack of faith, since no claim to a psychic ability has stood up to critical evaluation and empirical evidence points to there being no such thing. I would say most real atheists most likely do not "believe" in psychic abilities.

I did touch on the fringe of "no true Scotsman". I will admit that. But the important part was:

Atheism itself only implies the lack of belief in the divine (God(dess(es))).

The rest is obviously conjecture..

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Atheism itself only implies the lack of belief in the divine (God(dess(es))).

I'd personally say that atheism only implies the lack of belief in deities, not necessarily all divine things.

If a person believed in angels, demons, spirits, fairies, the power of crystals and psychic emanations... but didn't believe in anything rightly called a god, I'd call that person an atheist. They'd be in the minority in the atheist community, but the label would still fully apply, IMO.

 

[sneakysimian]

Umm.. I don't belive in precognition.

I don't believe in telepathy or telekenesis either (until proved). However if they could be proved I bet we could work out how they work, in other words there would be a reasonable explaination for it, not supernatural.

 

[Willamena]

I'd personally say that atheism only implies the lack of belief in deities, not necessarily all divine things.

If a person believed in angels, demons, spirits, fairies, the power of crystals and psychic emanations... but didn't believe in anything rightly called a god, I'd call that person an atheist. They'd be in the minority in the atheist community, but the label would still fully apply, IMO.

What is "rightly" called a god?

 

[Alceste]

are you an atheist? If you are I would like to talk about this in greater detail.

Hi Jeremy. I am an atheist who has had a few inexplicable experiences that have "proven" to my own satisfaction that these things happen. My own experiences (which meet the standard of "empirical evidence", but don't meet the standard of "repeatability") could not convince skeptics (and rightly so! They can investigate these matters for themselves, not take my word for it.) I'd be happy to discuss them with you via PM or email if you like.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

Hi Jeremy. I am an atheist who has had a few inexplicable experiences that have "proven" to my own satisfaction that these things happen. My own experiences (which meet the standard of "empirical evidence", but don't meet the standard of "repeatability") could not convince skeptics (and rightly so! They can investigate these matters for themselves, not take my word for it.) I'd be happy to discuss them with you via PM or email if you like.

What ever's clever. Is it possible to talk about it here?

 

[Alceste]

What ever's clever. Is it possible to talk about it here?

Yep, it's possible, but as public claims of personal paranormal experiences tend to quickly devolve into debates about whether subjective, random, mysterious personal experiences must meet the standards of objective, repeatable / predictable, comprehensible phenomena to be considered "real". These can be rewarding when discussing inexplicable experiences in general, but not if I am sharing my own personal experiences in detail. Ie, the occasional skeptic accuses me of intentional fraud, self-deception and/or psychosis and I find that boring.

So, out here I'm up for talking about inexplicable phenomena in general, but not my own experience with them. In private I'll tell you anything you'd like to know about the nitty gritty details.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

Yep, it's possible, but as public claims of personal paranormal experiences tend to quickly devolve into debates about whether subjective, random, mysterious personal experiences must meet the standards of objective, repeatable / predictable, comprehensible phenomena to be considered "real". These can be rewarding when discussing inexplicable experiences in general, but not if I am sharing my own personal experiences in detail. Ie, the occasional skeptic accuses me of intentional fraud, self-deception and/or psychosis and I find that boring.

So, out here I'm up for talking about inexplicable phenomena in general, but not my own experience with them. In private I'll tell you anything you'd like to know about the nitty gritty details.

Where should we start?

 

[Alceste]

Where should we start?

Ha, good question! Well, I'll just kick off by saying I think it's as irrational to disbelieve in unproven things as it is to believe in them, and I'm a very rational person. I like to see empirical evidence of things and I don't make my mind up until there is enough evidence to point to a single firm / fixed conclusion.

Contrary to popular belief, such "proofs" are extremely rare. What you get using the scientific method is a range of probabilities. It's a misrepresentation for anyone to claim that science has "proven" there is no such thing as psychic phenomena. In fact, a great mass of anecdotal evidence suggests that the occurrence of inexplicable phenomena is widespread. Almost everybody I know has at some point experienced something bizarre and inexplicable by the laws of nature as they are currently understood.

Even with the perspective above though, I had to have my own personal bizarre experiences before I could rule out the possible explanation (often embraced by skeptics) that people who make these claims are either attention-seeking frauds or schizophrenics.

The reason this hasn't led me to a belief in god is that there is no anecdotal or empirical evidence to suggest the existence (or non-existence) of an omniscient creator.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

Ha, good question! Well, I'll just kick off by saying I think it's as irrational to disbelieve in unproven things as it is to believe in them, and I'm a very rational person. I like to see empirical evidence of things and I don't make my mind up until there is enough evidence to point to a single firm / fixed conclusion.

Contrary to popular belief, such "proofs" are extremely rare. What you get using the scientific method is a range of probabilities. It's a misrepresentation for anyone to claim that science has "proven" there is no such thing as psychic phenomena. In fact, a great mass of anecdotal evidence suggests that the occurrence of inexplicable phenomena is widespread. Almost everybody I know has at some point experienced something bizarre and inexplicable by the laws of nature as they are currently understood.

Even with the perspective above though, I had to have my own personal bizarre experiences before I could rule out the possible explanation (often embraced by skeptics) that people who make these claims are either attention-seeking frauds or schizophrenics.

The reason this hasn't led me to a belief in god is that there is no anecdotal or empirical evidence to suggest the existence (or non-existence) of an omniscient creator.

I agree with you about the odd little or big things that happen that can't be explained. As a Christian I feel that I need to provide proof of something that is tough to describe. The things I look for are stories that all side of the issue agree to be true. For example: the Romans, Jews and other people of other nations all agree that Jesus actually lived. From that I can deduce that Jesus was not a fictional character and nether were his miracles. Edgar Casey said that we all have this power but we don't know how to tap into it. Fascinating isn't it?

 

[gnomon]

Hi Jeremy. I am an atheist who has had a few inexplicable experiences that have "proven" to my own satisfaction that these things happen. My own experiences (which meet the standard of "empirical evidence", but don't meet the standard of "repeatability") could not convince skeptics (and rightly so! They can investigate these matters for themselves, not take my word for it.) I'd be happy to discuss them with you via PM or email if you like.

What has been proven?

That paranormal phenomena exist or that you have had some experience beyond your explanations. The two are not the same.

 

[Alceste]

What has been proven?

That paranormal phenomena exist or that you have had some experience beyond your explanations. The two are not the same.

I don't concern myself with "proof", or the "real / unreal" dichotomy. (Are your dreams real? Is love real? I see the line as quite fuzzy.) Instead I accept empirical evidence (ie. my own experience and the occasional bit of research or testimonial) until the probability is weighted far enough to justify an opinion.

So what has been proven to my satisfaction is that there is an element of my awareness that is not subject to the constraints of time and space as they are currently understood, and is not pinned to a specific location. (When I say "as they are currently understood" I mean by the skeptical layman, not the quantum physicist, as quantum physics, IMO, allows for this assertion.)