• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Deism, an intellectually serious position in previous centuries, now must reject scientific explanations

Hallucinations are commonplace.

Optical illusions are commonplace.

Human brains are prone to "see" faces, and people, and animals, when in fact there is no face, person or animal present.

If two people (or a thousand) report a ghost, hallucinations are a possible explanation; Optical illusion is a more likely explanation; And pareidolia is an even more likely explanation still.
Frustrated with re-editing mistakes on a tiny small screen. I left some details out. The couple who experienced the encounter were so intrigued they mentioned it to the hotel manager in which he told them: other people have seen the same thing before.
In the absence of high quality and convincing evidence that a given report is not one of these three things, it might be reasonable to speculate about ghosts, but at best this is wild speculation.

Wild speculation is fun, but it's not rational, reasonable, or justifiable.
The appearance of the woman according to this gentleman, being a strong atheist against religion, often repeating the same "cruel god" and "magic" mantra lines as atheist do here, was quite sure of his mental analysis.
Life after death is less plausible than perpetual motion machines, or rocks that fall upwards. If ghosts are your go-to explanation for witness reports of people who are visible, but aren't really there, then you are a gullible fool.

Which puts you in good company, as very few (if any) humans are not gullible fools.
I didn't say this man or I believed the appearance of the woman was a 'wandering spirit'. Like the conventional, conceptual view we see in movies where the ghost is aware of you, interacting with humans, which is chillingly exciting in horror films etc..

The atheist gentleman saw the image of a woman which was 'detailed and clear enough' that he was able to describe what she was wearing (although I can't remember now exactly what he described the ghost seemed to wear).

As I say, we believed there was a natural/scientific explanation. Even though by the atheists own description and wording... he said he saw a ghost.
You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that a repetition of the anecdote, with added detail, makes it more interesting, or a better example of something inexplicable.
Misapprehension & repetition? Hearing about 'more than one' person claiming to see a ghost in the same hotel makes it more interesting indeed. People who are curious enough to look into the details, even merely just to dispell the notion are interested. It ain't for you, fair enough, but for those who are inquisitive about such claims, it's quite a normal and natural thing.

We do not, and cannot, know what this person experienced; But no matter how convinced he was that what he saw was a ghost, it remains reasonable to assume that he was mistaken, and unreasonable to assume that he was not.At this point, I am prepared to entertain as plausible the claim that there was a man, who was an atheist, who claimed to have seen a ghost. Despite the only evidence being a single anecdote from a generally unreliable source, these things are sufficiently banal as to be unremarkable.
Thank you for at least being prepared to entertain the plausibility that someone did make that claim.

That's all I was doing myself. Entertaining the idea!
To entertain the idea that this hypothetical and unnamed person actually did see a ghost, or to conclude from your anecdote that ghosts exist would be ridiculous.
It doesn't matter if the person is unnamed. As I said previously, there is a well-known member on the forum, whom you know quite well, who says he has also seen a similar event (He's not been around for a while, I hope he's well).

The main point I was underlining initially was that...
..Atheists have claimed to have seen ghosts!
That you clearly find this poor evidence for an extraordinary claim to be compelling, and that you expect it to also convince others, speaks poorly of human reasoning abilities.

It is precisely to avoid this kind of sloppy and unreliable thinking that the scientific method was devised.
As above:
It is you who seems to be under some misapprehension; as if I was 'promoting" the belief of
ghosts (in terms as conceptually understood by common convention).

Whether the evidence is poor or not, is irrelevant to my position and the bit that's ignored. That bit is the idea that it was atheists who made those claims,seeing ghosts!
 
Last edited:
Hallucinations are commonplace.

Optical illusions are commonplace.

Human brains are prone to "see" faces, and people, and animals, when in fact there is no face, person or animal present.

If two people (or a thousand) report a ghost, hallucinations are a possible explanation; Optical illusion is a more likely explanation; And pareidolia is an even more likely explanation still.
Frustrated with re-editing mistakes on a tiny small screen. I left some details out. The couple who experienced the encounter were so intrigued they mentioned it to the hotel manager in which he told them: other people have seen the same thing before.
In the absence of high quality and convincing evidence that a given report is not one of these three things, it might be reasonable to speculate about ghosts, but at best this is wild speculation.

Wild speculation is fun, but it's not rational, reasonable, or justifiable.
The appearance of the woman according to this gentleman, being a strong atheist against religion, often repeating the same "cruel god" and "magic" mantra lines as atheist do here, was quite sure of his mental analysis.
Life after death is less plausible than perpetual motion machines, or rocks that fall upwards. If ghosts are your go-to explanation for witness reports of people who are visible, but aren't really there, then you are a gullible fool.

Which puts you in good company, as very few (if any) humans are not gullible fools.
I didn't say this man or I believed the appearance of the woman was a 'wandering spirit'. Like the conventional, conceptual view we see in movies where the ghost is aware of you, interacting with humans, which is chillingly exciting in horror films etc..

The atheist gentleman saw the image of a woman which was 'detailed and clear enough' that he was able to describe what she was wearing (although I can't remember now exactly what he described the ghost seemed to wear).

As I say, we believed there was a natural/scientific explanation. Even though by the atheists own description and wording... he said he saw a ghost.
You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that a repetition of the anecdote, with added detail, makes it more interesting, or a better example of something inexplicable.
Misapprehension & repetition? Hearing about 'more than one' person claiming to see a ghost in the same hotel makes it more interesting indeed. People who are curious enough to look into the details, even merely just to dispell the notion are interested. It ain't for you, fair enough, but for those who are inquisitive about such claims, it's quite a normal and natural thing.

We do not, and cannot, know what this person experienced; But no matter how convinced he was that what he saw was a ghost, it remains reasonable to assume that he was mistaken, and unreasonable to assume that he was not.At this point, I am prepared to entertain as plausible the claim that there was a man, who was an atheist, who claimed to have seen a ghost. Despite the only evidence being a single anecdote from a generally unreliable source, these things are sufficiently banal as to be unremarkable.
Thank you for at least being prepared to entertain the plausibility that someone did make that claim.

That's all I was doing myself. Entertaining the idea!
To entertain the idea that this hypothetical and unnamed person actually did see a ghost, or to conclude from your anecdote that ghosts exist would be ridiculous.
It doesn't matter if the person is unnamed. As I said previously, there is a well-known member on the forum, whom you know quite well, who says he has also seen a similar event (He's not been around for a while, I hope he's well).

The main point I was underlining initially was that...
..Atheists have claimed to have seen ghosts!
That you clearly find this poor evidence for an extraordinary claim to be compelling, and that you expect it to also convince others, speaks poorly of human reasoning abilities.

It is precisely to avoid this kind of sloppy and unreliable thinking that the scientific method was devised.
As above:
It is you who seems to be under some misapprehension; as if I was 'promoting" the belief of
ghosts (in terms as conceptually understood by common convention).

Whether the evidence is poor or not, is irrelevant to my position and the bit that's ignored. That bit is the idea that it was atheists who made those claims,seeing ghosts!
Why the fuck would you think that being an atheist would in any way be related to making claims about ghosts?

That's like saying "OMG! That guy over there actually travelled by train!!", and when everyone says "So what?" you come back with "But he's always said he was afraid of flying, and refused to do it!".

Lacking a belief in gods in no way protects anyone against belief in any other stupid crap. Unless you want to suggest that ghosts are gods, you are just wasting your time and everyone else's.

Both ghosts and gods are fictional, but being an atheist doesn't mean disbelieving any and all fiction - it is explicitly defined as disbelief in gods.

Atheists are free to believe in Santa, Sherlock Holmes, or Captain Nemo; Such beliefs may be wrong, but they aren't relevant to atheism at all.
 
[...].

If two people (or a thousand) report a ghost, hallucinations are a possible explanation; Optical illusion is a more likely explanation; And pareidolia is an even more likely explanation still.
Frustrated with re-editing mistakes on a tiny small [...] seen the same thing before.
In the absence of high quality and convincing evidence that a given report is not one of these three things, it might be reasonable to speculate .
The appearance of the woman according to this gentleman, being a strong atheist against religion, often repeatin here, was quite sure of his mental analysis.[...]
Life after death is less plausible than perpetual motion machines, or rocks that fall upwards. If ghosts are your go-to explanation for witness reports of people who are visible, but aren't really there, then you are a gullible fool.

Which puts you in good company, as very few (if any) humans are not gullible fools.
I didn't say this man or I be[...]

As I say, we believed there was a natural/scientific explanation. Even though by the atheists own description and wording... he said he saw a ghost.
You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that a repetition of the anecdote, with added detail, makes it more interesting, or a better example of something inexplicable.
Misapprehension & repetition? Hearing about 'more than one' person claiming to see a ghost in the same hotel makes it more interesting indeed. People who are curious enough to look into the details, even merely just to dispell the notion are interested. It ain't for you, fair enough, but for those who are inquisitive about such claims, it's quite a normal and natural thing.

We do not, and cannot, know what this person experienced; But no matter how convinced he was that what he saw was a ghost, it remains reasonable to assume that he was mistaken, and unreasonable to assume that he was not.At this point, I am prepared to entertain as plausible the claim that there was a man, who was an atheist, who claimed to have seen a ghost. Despite the only evidence being a single anecdote from a generally unreliable source, these things are sufficiently banal as to be unremarkable.
Thank you for at least being prepared to entertain the plausibility that someone did make that claim.

That's all I was doing myself. Entertaining the idea!
To entertain the idea that this hypothetical and unnamed person actually did see a ghost, or to conclude from your anecdote that ghosts exist would be ridiculous.
It doesn't matter if the person is unnamed. As I said previously, there is a well-known member on the forum, whom you know quite well, who says he has also seen a similar event (He's not been around for a while, I hope he's well).

The main point I was underlining initially was that...
..Atheists have claimed to have seen ghosts!
That you clearly find this poor evidence for an extraordinary claim to be compelling, and that you expect it to also convince others, speaks poorly of human reasoning abilities.

It is precisely to avoid this kind of sloppy and unreliable thinking that the scientific method was devised.
As above:
It is you who seems to be under some misapprehension; as if I was 'promoting" the belief of
ghosts (in terms as conceptually understood by common convention).

Whether the evidence is poor or not, is irrelevant to my position and the bit that's ignored. That bit is the idea that it was atheists who made those claims,seeing ghosts!
Why the fuck would you think that being an atheist would in any way be related to making claims about ghosts?
Did you not get the indication when they made the claim, the description in their own words was: they've seen a ghost?
That's like saying "OMG! That guy over there actually travelled by train!!", and when everyone says "So what?" you come back with "But he's always said he was afraid of flying, and refused to do it!".
Contextually a poor analogy. Using an example of 'common normality' is quite a believable thing especially even to the hardest of hard-core sceptics of the supernatural. Your example has no resemblance to what you may think it's equating to.

Lacking a belief in gods in no way protects anyone against belief in any other stupid crap. Unless you want to suggest that ghosts are gods, you are just wasting your time and everyone else's.
I repeat, I entertained the idea hypothetically, a thought challenge to a 'what if' idea, so to speak.
(I even came up with a hypothetical by a 'natural occurrence' just to engage in the mood of an interesting discussion).

Both ghosts and gods are fictional, but being an atheist doesn't mean disbelieving any and all fiction - it is explicitly defined as disbelief in gods.

Atheists are free to believe in Santa, Sherlock Holmes, or Captain Nemo; Such beliefs may be wrong, but they aren't relevant to atheism at all.
Yeah yeah. But in their own words as atheists... they've seen ghosts.

That would actually be a good debate to see: You v the ghost seeing atheist.
 
Last edited:
Atheists see whatever they want to see, as do theists and everyone in between. It means nothing.

The Esteeeeeemed Professor Dr Richard Dawkins, once the King of Atheism, is himself a science-denying scientist, and organized atheists still are, so, atheists are as likely to believe bullshit as anyone else.

It's no big deal. There are no other distinguishing characteristics. Humans have ideas! WOW.
 
Science in its simplest form. Compare what we know to something we do not know and see what gives. AKA Einstein. "Alive" seems to fit the best to me when we compare classifications we use to the system around us. But that is if we are really trying the best we can with what we have. lol, that is liking expecting our government to be trying the best they can, with what they have, for the country. Using basic classifications as a comparison, I am willing to test any others that I am not aware of. lol, that being an awful long list I might add.

"creator" ... Like the "aliveness" me creates cells in me. The truth is probably in-between fundamental atheist/theist think. A truth that both camp's leaders (and the flag carriers) need to avoid. To me anyway.
 
Last edited:
The truth is probably in-between fundamental atheist/theist think.
My experience with "theist think" is that it's emotional. Truth is how you feel about something and what your friends are telling you, not what you observe and makes scientific, evidence-based sense. So I don't know what you mean by "in between."
 
Atheists see whatever they want to see, as do theists and everyone in between. It means nothing.

The Esteeeeeemed Professor Dr Richard Dawkins, once the King of Atheism, is himself a science-denying scientist, and organized atheists still are, so, atheists are as likely to believe bullshit as anyone else.

It's no big deal. There are no other distinguishing characteristics. Humans have ideas! WOW.
Claptrap

What exactly are your beliefs?
 
The truth is probably in-between fundamental atheist/theist think.
My experience with "theist think" is that it's emotional. Truth is how you feel about something and what your friends are telling you, not what you observe and makes scientific, evidence-based sense. So I don't know what you mean by "in between."
Observations of which defined aspect of truth?

The biblical aspect of truth, that emphasises on the qualities of honesty, humbleness and humility (demanded of God) is not the same 'aspect of truth' one defines scientific facts to be, when describing the conclusion of observations about nature!

(They're not the same types of truth in context)

Love and compassion are emotions we can understand by recognising how someone acts upon their emotions (also reading from the psychological point of view). The gospels are meant to be 'easy' to understand from the 'emotional point of view' on ALL intellectual levels that most of us (if not absolutely all) will recognise, simply because we are human.

The concept here: Jesus channels his message through our emotional conscience! Why does one need to be "scholarly endowed" to read the bible, so to speak? That would be false and misguiding, and certainly dishearten the "lowley" folk (deliberately sometimes).

Simply put (because I'm a simple man). No-one is more qualified than the beholder of his or her own emotions (be as children (in understanding), as it says in a verse).

Science doesn't accommodate that capacity to provide you the emotional conscience, which is innate in us all.

But here's one for science and truth based on human emotions: The science method to tell if an individual is lying, by reading their 'emotional reactions' when being questioned in criminal cases, taking polygraph tests!
 
Last edited:

But here's one for science and truth based on human emotions: The science method to tell if an individual is lying, by reading their 'emotional reactions' when being questioned in criminal cases, taking polygraph tests!

Polygraph tests are not reliable and are not admissible as evidence in a court of law.

As to the rest, atheist claims to see a ghost, ho-hum, big deal, so what? Why are you banging on about this?

I don’t know if Winston Churchill was an atheist or not — I suspect he was. Anyway, he met the ghost of Abe Lincoln while overnighting in the White House, as a number of others have. He was stepping out of the shower, quite naked, and there was old Abe. “Mr. President,” Churchill recounts saying, “I’m afraid you have me at a disadvantage.”
 

But here's one for science and truth based on human emotions: The science method to tell if an individual is lying, by reading their 'emotional reactions' when being questioned in criminal cases, taking polygraph tests!

Polygraph tests are not reliable and are not admissible as evidence in a court of law.

As to the rest, atheist claims to see a ghost, ho-hum, big deal, so what? Why are you banging on about this?

I don’t know if Winston Churchill was an atheist or not — I suspect he was. Anyway, he met the ghost of Abe Lincoln while overnighting in the White House, as a number of others have. He was stepping out of the shower, quite naked, and there was old Abe. “Mr. President,” Churchill recounts saying, “I’m afraid you have me at a disadvantage.”
I have heard that story too but the president was FDR and he was very much alive.
 

But here's one for science and truth based on human emotions: The science method to tell if an individual is lying, by reading their 'emotional reactions' when being questioned in criminal cases, taking polygraph tests!

Polygraph tests are not reliable and are not admissible as evidence in a court of law.

As to the rest, atheist claims to see a ghost, ho-hum, big deal, so what? Why are you banging on about this?

I don’t know if Winston Churchill was an atheist or not — I suspect he was. Anyway, he met the ghost of Abe Lincoln while overnighting in the White House, as a number of others have. He was stepping out of the shower, quite naked, and there was old Abe. “Mr. President,” Churchill recounts saying, “I’m afraid you have me at a disadvantage.”
People love a good story well delivered. Perhaps Churchill's best concerned a chicken and its neck.
 
Polygraph tests are not reliable total horseshit and are not admissible as evidence in a court of law.
FTFY.

The ONLY useful feature of a polygraph is that it might occasionally inspire truthfulness in people who are unaware that it is utterly useless for detecting lies.
 

But here's one for science and truth based on human emotions: The science method to tell if an individual is lying, by reading their 'emotional reactions' when being questioned in criminal cases, taking polygraph tests!

Polygraph tests are not reliable and are not admissible as evidence in a court of law.
Is that universal? Polygraphs are accepted in some states, apparently.

I lifted the excerpt below from lawinfo.com. Both sides in court have to agree to the polygraph test of course.

The criminal justice systems of states that may allow the results of a polygraph test as evidence in a criminal case include:

Alabama
Arizona*
Arkansas
California*
Delaware
Florida*
Georgia*
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Nevada*
New Jersey
New Mexico
North Dakota
Ohio
Utah
Washington
Wyoming
(It's not really what my argument is about.
Besides I could have used another example instead like: it's also required in some Government Agencies to take the polygraph test when joining).

As to the rest, atheist claims to see a ghost, ho-hum, big deal, so what? Why are you banging on about this?
I didn't think it was a big deal either myself, although that conversation went much further than I intended .. responding in my defense.

It should have ALSO been noted that I have been 'banging on' about atheists and theist related topics in the religion threads for quite some time...
...so um.. what's new?
 
Back
Top Bottom