Christ Centered Gamer

Sstavix wrote:

ArchAngel wrote:No, definitely not ghosts.

But I LOVE ghost stories.

It's a timely discussion right now, isn't it?

So, if not ghosts, what explanation do you have for supernatural sightings? After all, many people have experienced things that they just can't explain, and seems to stump science.

I'm not aware of supernatural sightings that have stumped science :I

ChickenSoup wrote: I'm not aware of supernatural sightings that have stumped science :I

One of the most recent ones I've been aware of happened earlier this year. Although psychologists have come up with explanations as to why some of the children behaved the way they did, they can't account for the actions that the members of Child Protective Services saw (e.g. walking up walls and along the ceiling). The Catholic church in the area certainly believed there was an issue with demonic possession in the home, though... and from the sound of it in the article, the once-skeptical police chief is now a believer as well.

I'm not saying that there isn't a scientific explanation for ghosts, demons, and angelic sightings. I'm just curious to see how supernatural occurrences like these can be explained using scientific methods. Unless, of course, people just dismiss them as a hoax and don't bother to examine it too closely....

Yeah, that story doesn't really sound credible. Personally, I tend to doubt those kinds of stories. That's just my opinion though.

Lots of atheists have strange beliefs. Really, getting groups of atheists together on some issues is like herding cats. For example, as a feminist, I tend to disagree with a lot of the misogyny that comes from a lot of well known atheists, while many other atheists are willing to blow it off. (Seriously, Dawkins, just stop now while you're ahead.) There are atheists out there who believe in ghosts, just like there are Christians who don't. There are atheists who believe in New Age stuff and crystals and all kinds of woo. There are atheists out there who believe we were created by intelligent aliens. I don't know how they justify those beliefs because different people come up with different reasons.

And that's one reason you can't really call atheism a religion, because it only answers one question. I wouldn't call someone religious just because they believe in a god or multiple gods either.

Sstavix wrote:

ChickenSoup wrote: I'm not aware of supernatural sightings that have stumped science :I

One of the most recent ones I've been aware of happened earlier this year. Although psychologists have come up with explanations as to why some of the children behaved the way they did, they can't account for the actions that the members of Child Protective Services saw (e.g. walking up walls and along the ceiling). The Catholic church in the area certainly believed there was an issue with demonic possession in the home, though... and from the sound of it in the article, the once-skeptical police chief is now a believer as well.

I'm not saying that there isn't a scientific explanation for ghosts, demons, and angelic sightings. I'm just curious to see how supernatural occurrences like these can be explained using scientific methods. Unless, of course, people just dismiss them as a hoax and don't bother to examine it too closely....

People also used to think that epilepsy was caused by demons and that the sun revolved around the earth. It was a case of science not being able to explain it yet.

For some reason the article you posted is acting up for me and not loading right, but I tend to take Huff Post articles with a grain of salt anyway

Sstavix wrote:So, if not ghosts, what explanation do you have for supernatural sightings? After all, many people have experienced things that they just can't explain, and seems to stump science.

Simply put, they aren't. Ghosts, apparitions, auras, possessions, etc, just don't happen. They are either natural phenomena, like schizophrenia or hallucinations, tall tales that got embellished over time, especially with a predisposition for belief in these things, or straight cons.
I have yet to see one of these claims ever come close to being demonstrable. I'd shove them in with the alien abduction crowd, but the idea of an advanced alien race is at least plausible/probable.

But yes, I absolutely dismiss them as a hoax. Similar claims have repeatedly been shown to be hoaxes, fabrications, or just wrong, and if they make extraordinary claims like that, there have better be extraordinary evidence. But the only evidence ever provided is weak and sketchy at best. I don't have to take these seriously.
If ONE of these claims has been demonstrated, then maybe they warrant a closer to look.

Surprising to hear such absolute statements coming from someone whose normal M.O. is to insist upon a strict, formal scientific approach to everything.

(Not saying that to be a jerk. Just pointing it out. )

It's not an absolute statement; I just don't have to take ridiculous statements seriously until they bring something significant to the table.

ArchAngel wrote:It's not an absolute statement; I just don't have to take ridiculous statements seriously until they bring something significant to the table.

"But yes, I absolutely dismiss them as a hoax."
-ArchAngel

Stepping away from wordpicking, you've already demonstrated a strong bias against the subject, and that's no way to claim objectivity. You want extraordinary evidence, yet your own words demonstrate that you're not open to it in the first place.

Bad science mojo, my friend.

I compare it to this:

People insist a giant pink unicorn roams the clouds. At first, you make objective statements to be polite ("I mean, if someone could show me a heat signature with an IR camera or something... but seriously, it's not real"), until after years and years the claims of evidence get more and more ridiculous to the point that you get sick of hearing it and say things like "no, it's a hoax, just stop." If they ACTUALLY provided evidence--well, yeah, there'd be examination, but it's an incredibly exasperating topic.

ChickenSoup wrote:I compare it to this:

People insist a giant pink unicorn roams the clouds. At first, you make objective statements to be polite ("I mean, if someone could show me a heat signature with an IR camera or something... but seriously, it's not real"), until after years and years the claims of evidence get more and more ridiculous to the point that you get sick of hearing it and say things like "no, it's a hoax, just stop." If they ACTUALLY provided evidence--well, yeah, there'd be examination, but it's an incredibly exasperating topic.

This is more or less how I feel in regards to all "paranormal" subjects. I'm always open to reconsidering my viewpoint based upon proof. But every piece of proof I've seen thus far for ghosts and/or hauntings has been debunked, discredited, or is purely anecdotal and therefore doesn't do anything to persuade me that it's true. I can anecdotally reference fairy sightings, but that doesn't mean they were actually fairies.

So I'm saying that it's not wrong to say that your null hypothesis is "It's probably false, until evidence suggests otherwise." It's how we handle accusations in our legal system, and it's how I approach topics of dubious research. There's a difference between saying that something is absolutely a hoax and nothing can ever convince me otherwise (The absolutism Arctic is referring to, which I agree, is bad), and saying that you are considering something a hoax until compelling evidence shows otherwise.

As the Latin saying goes, Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (approximately: "the burden of proof is on he who declares, not on he who denies"). So if I'm claiming that hauntings occur, then the burden of proof is on me, while those who don't (rhetorically, the rest of you) do not need to supply proof for the corollary.


Maybe you don't see it that way, but that's how I (And I suspect Arch and C$) view it.

selderane wrote:This is a fun thread.

It has been fun so far, hasn't it?

Bruce_Campbell wrote: There are atheists out there who believe in ghosts, just like there are Christians who don't. There are atheists who believe in New Age stuff and crystals and all kinds of woo. There are atheists out there who believe we were created by intelligent aliens.

There's at least one religion that I know of with Abrahamic leanings (think: Judeo/Christian) that believe that as well. So it isn't limited to atheism....

Bruce_Campbell wrote: And that's one reason you can't really call atheism a religion, because it only answers one question. I wouldn't call someone religious just because they believe in a god or multiple gods either.

I would, actually. But then again, my definition of religion is a bit looser than others, too. Basically, I view "religion" as an approach to understand that what science and research can't explain - especially when we're looking at the spiritual side of things.

ChickenSoup wrote: For some reason the article you posted is acting up for me and not loading right, but I tend to take Huff Post articles with a grain of salt anyway

I usually do as well - I initially read the story months ago on Yahoo News and the Blaze. But this time, I just grabbed the first news link when I did a search last night. Lazy of me, I know.

So, ChickenSoup, and Broamir - and anyone else who wants to chime in - do you believe that there is a scientific explanation for everything? That we may not have the answers yet, but with enough research, testing and examination, everything can be rationalized in scientific terms?

ChickenSoup wrote: People insist a giant pink unicorn roams the clouds. At first, you make objective statements to be polite ("I mean, if someone could show me a heat signature with an IR camera or something... but seriously, it's not real"), until after years and years the claims of evidence get more and more ridiculous to the point that you get sick of hearing it and say things like "no, it's a hoax, just stop." If they ACTUALLY provided evidence--well, yeah, there'd be examination, but it's an incredibly exasperating topic.

What if there are dozens - or hundreds - of people who have claimed to have seen the unicorn, and you're the only one who hasn't? Does eyewitness testimony or personal experiences count as evidence?

Sstavix wrote:

ChickenSoup wrote: People insist a giant pink unicorn roams the clouds. At first, you make objective statements to be polite ("I mean, if someone could show me a heat signature with an IR camera or something... but seriously, it's not real"), until after years and years the claims of evidence get more and more ridiculous to the point that you get sick of hearing it and say things like "no, it's a hoax, just stop." If they ACTUALLY provided evidence--well, yeah, there'd be examination, but it's an incredibly exasperating topic.

What if there are dozens - or hundreds - of people who have claimed to have seen the unicorn, and you're the only one who hasn't? Does eyewitness testimony or personal experiences count as evidence?

If hundreds of people think PHP is a great programming language, and many countless applications are built with it, does that make PHP a good programming language? Of course not, PHP is clearly a horrible language. (Kidding about PHP...mostly. PHP does suck and it breaks way too easily. But that's a tangent)

That's more or less an Argumentum ad populum: a fallacious argument that a conjecture is true because many or most people believe it.


Now, I'm not trying to come across an arrogant jerk here. Just because lots of people believe something doesn't make it true. It just means it's popular. That's not to say that popularity means it's wrong either; that's also a fallacious line of reasoning. Popularity is just an additional motivator, if you will, to investigate something. "Hey, lots of people believe this. Maybe there's something to it. I should investigate!" is the approach that I would take, and tend to think everyone should take. But don't let the popularity (or lack thereof) influence your analysis.

Anyway, ramble over.

Deepfreeze32 wrote: That's more or less an Argumentum ad populum: a fallacious argument that a conjecture is true because many or most people believe it.


Now, I'm not trying to come across an arrogant jerk here. Just because lots of people believe something doesn't make it true. It just means it's popular. That's not to say that popularity means it's wrong either; that's also a fallacious line of reasoning. Popularity is just an additional motivator, if you will, to investigate something. "Hey, lots of people believe this. Maybe there's something to it. I should investigate!" is the approach that I would take, and tend to think everyone should take. But don't let the popularity (or lack thereof) influence your analysis.

Anyway, ramble over.

I agree with you, actually. Just because a majority believes something doesn't actually make it true... but if a majority does believe it, it may require a bit of investigating to determine the rationale behind it. Some research may be needed, rather than idly dismissing it.

There has been research into these claims and they all turned up bupkis. We don't just "idly dismiss" it. We enthusiastically dismiss it.

Sstavix wrote:I would, actually. But then again, my definition of religion is a bit looser than others, too. Basically, I view "religion" as an approach to understand that what science and research can't explain - especially when we're looking at the spiritual side of things.

Yeah, no. That's not how words are supposed to work.

Yeah, it just kind of weakens the word when you play fast and loose with the definition. In that sense, everyone is religious, which simply isn't true. I mean, you could argue that some atheists treat their atheism like a religion, and I wouldn't disagree. But you could say that about football too, and I'm not going to call football a religion.

edit (because I forgot my other point before I hit reply): I really think people try to paint atheism as a religion to deflect most atheists criticisms of religion. Almost as if to say, "Oh yeah? Well you're religious too, so nyeah!" (And many times the same people will say that Christianity is not a religion, but a relationship, which is just playing with semantics in a bad attempt at PR.) It also makes their position weaker, because they aren't really defending their position, just tearing down another at the expense of their own.