Atheism or Naturalism?

marti8 · 21-06-2011 4:07pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Ok, but you understand why this contradicts what you said earlier ("do I know what they are etc etc - no. I know nothing about them other than they exist.")? I'm not trying to get one over on you or anything, but you claimed not to know anything about what these things are while at the same time, labeling them (meaning you knew enough about them to label them).
So you that the spirits of dead people can roam the earth as ghosts?

I'm agnostic on that. And no I see no contradiction whatsoever - I believe in ghosts, that is what are termed ghosts, but I do not claim to know what ghosts are, that is all I am saying. I will say I think it's logical enough to think that ghosts were once living people but this is simply a guess.

21-06-2011 4:08pm

marti8 wrote: »

I read it qucikly and what you are saying is possible but then many things are possible. However again I'll contend I was awake not asleep, I was awake.

It appears you've read my post too quickly. If you read it again you'll see that when I experience what I experience--sights, sounds, smells, visions, etc.--I'm awake. I also said that about 10% of the time these hallucinations will manifest themselves in the guise of a human figure, and that while I'm experiencing this figure it's impossible for me to tell if it's actually there or not, even though I'm awake; it's equivilant to a real person standing there.

How is that not what you've experienced, tell me?

Mark Hamill · 21-06-2011 4:12pm

marti8 wrote: »

1) Nope, same man. Not a picture.

How do you know? How much distance was between you and the window?

marti8 wrote: »

2) The layout didn't allow for that. I would have seen her no matter what direction she went in.

You where inside, looking out through a kitchen window and there wasn't anywhere she could have gone that was out of your line of sight? Why are you so sure that the thing you caught a glimpse of was a woman?

marti8 wrote: »

3) I never said it was a dream, it wasn't, I was awake.

How do you know? i.e. What makes you different from those who have claimed to have seen angels or saints whilst awake in bed?

marti8 · 21-06-2011 4:12pm

gvn wrote: »

It appears you've read my post too quickly. If you read it again you'll see that when I experience what I experience--sights, sounds, smells, visions, etc.--I'm awake. I also said that about 10% of the time these hallucinations will manifest themselves in the guise of a human figure, and that while I'm experiencing this figure it's impossible for me to tell if it's actually there or not, even though I'm awake; it's equivilant to a real person standing there.

How is that not what you've experienced, tell me?

How is that not a paranormal event that you are experiencing, tell me?:P

lolo62 · 21-06-2011 4:13pm

hi OP i think youve raised a really good point here.

ive been following the thread and finding it really interesting. youve said a few times that you are agnostic atheist....agnostic (according to good old wikipedia) means the truth value of certain phenomenon is unknown or unknowable

it sounds to me what you are saying is you 'know' what you saw with the ghosts and i think this is where the problem is as it would appear to contradict an agnostic viewpoint...

im not trying to undermine you here (i personally believe in ghosts) i think youre presenting a really good argument but i think the second you say i am atheist/agnostic/xyz there is a box youre supposed to get in and a whole load of other boxes that will contradict your chosen one and so from there words become limiting...

Zombrex · 21-06-2011 4:14pm

marti8 wrote: »

Prove it.

You asked for a rational explanation. Whether it was or wasn't a hallucination, that is a rational explanation for it.

If you ignore it this you just demonstrate you don't really care for rational explanations, and are just wishing to believe what you want to be true.

Mark Hamill · 21-06-2011 4:15pm

marti8 wrote: »

I'm agnostic on that. And no I see no contradiction whatsoever - I believe in ghosts, that is what are termed ghosts, but I do not claim to know what ghosts are, that is all I am saying. I will say I think it's logical enough to think that ghosts were once living people but this is simply a guess.

You are claiming that ghosts were once living people, are you not?

21-06-2011 4:16pm

marti8 wrote: »

How is that not a paranormal event that you are experiencing, tell me?:P

Because it's a well documented and understood sleep phenomenon, a type of parasomnia. I could conclude that it's a paranormal phenomenon, but that takes more assumptions than to conclude that it's a well understood parasomnia. Don't multiply entities beyond necessity, a wise man once said.

Now, answer my question:

Why do you conclude that your experiences--your third experience specifically--has a foundation in the paranormal when I've just given you an explanation which requires less assumptions?

Zombrex · 21-06-2011 4:17pm

marti8 wrote: »

I will say I think it's logical enough to think that ghosts were once living people but this is simply a guess.

What criteria are you using to say that such a belief is logical, given that it is at odds with everything we know about biology and physics?

marti8 · 21-06-2011 4:17pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

How do you know? How much distance was between you and the window?

You where inside, looking out through a kitchen window and there wasn't anywhere she could have gone that was out of your line of sight? Why are you so sure that the thing you caught a glimpse of was a woman?

How do you know? i.e. What makes you different from those who have claimed to have seen angels or saints whilst awake in bed?

1) I cann tell the difference between a photo and a person. Disatnce between me and the window, 15ft maybe.

2) No, she did go out of my line of sight when she passed the window, I then went at once to the next window and there was nobody there. Not only that there was no woamn staying at the hostel at that time, in fact I was the only person there that morning. Why am I so sure it was a woman - you know you're right, maybe it was man in drag

Body shape, posture, dress, face, hair. The face, hair are a blur - dress I recall, posture was upright, walking purposefully and body shape, well, she didn't have a beer belly.

3) I don't calim any religious significance, that is what makes it different. I don't see angels or saints or any of that. Don't believe in that stuff.

CerebralCortex · 21-06-2011 4:18pm

Wicknight wrote: »

You asked for a rational explanation. Whether it was or wasn't a hallucination, that is a rational explanation for it.

If you ignore it this you just demonstrate you don't really care for rational explanations, and are just wishing to believe what you want to be true.

Beautifully put!

Zombrex · 21-06-2011 4:18pm

gvn wrote: »

Why do you conclude that your experiences--your third experience specifically--has a foundation in the paranormal when I've just given you an explanation which requires less assumptions?

Because humans want to believe in these things, whether or not they are true or not. We are a rather silly species at times :pac:

CerebralCortex · 21-06-2011 4:21pm

marti8 wrote: »

1) I cann tell the difference between a photo and a person. Disatnce between me and the window, 15ft maybe.

2) No, she did go out of my line of sight when she passed the window, I then went at once to the next window and there was nobody there. Not only that there was no woamn staying at the hostel at that time, in fact I was the only person there that morning. Why am I so sure it was a woman - you know you're right, maybe it was man in drag Body shape, posture, dress, face, hair. The face, hair are a blur - dress I recall, posture was upright, walking purposefully and body shape, well, she didn't have a beer belly.

3) I don't calim any religious significance, that is what makes it different. I don't see angels or saints or any of that. Don't believe in that stuff.

A hostel. Had you drinks taken? Just because there were no women staying there doesn't mean there were no women ahem "staying" there.

marti8 · 21-06-2011 4:25pm

lolo62 wrote: »

hi OP i think youve raised a really good point here.

ive been following the thread and finding it really interesting. youve said a few times that you are agnostic atheist....agnostic (according to good old wikipedia) means the truth value of certain phenomenon is unknown or unknowable

it sounds to me what you are saying is you 'know' what you saw with the ghosts and i think this is where the problem is as it would appear to contradict an agnostic viewpoint...

im not trying to undermine you here (i personally believe in ghosts) i think youre presenting a really good argument but i think the second you say i am atheist/agnostic/xyz there is a box youre supposed to get in and a whole load of other boxes that will contradict your chosen one and so from there words become limiting...

I'm agnsotic atheist, I don't say god doesn't exist - I say I don't believe god exists - if you see what I mean. Yes, I know what I saw, just as I know right now that I am typing. Agnostic can be applied to anything, athesim can only be applied to the lack of belief in a god.

Zombrex · 21-06-2011 4:29pm

CerebralCortex wrote: »

A hostel. Had you drinks taken? Just because there were no women staying there doesn't mean there were no women ahem "staying" there.

He saw a woman through a window, it seems the natural conclusion was that he saw a woman through a window. The fact that he couldn't see her again when he moved to the next window can be explained by any number of completely normal explanations, the most obvious to my mind being that as he was moving she simply turned around, or ducked down below the window.

It takes a particular desire to believe in the supernatural to take such a story as evidence of ghosts walking the Earth.

Like I said, we are silly species.

marti8 · 21-06-2011 4:29pm

CerebralCortex wrote: »

A hostel. Had you drinks taken? Just because there were no women staying there doesn't mean there were no women ahem "staying" there.

Nope, no drinks taken, didn't really even drink back then. Don't even drink much these days. I was the only guest in the hostel, as was the way for 99% of the time I was there. The place "felt" odd from day one. I was eventually asked to leave as the owner sai everything had been quiet again until I turned up. The place had a history it seems. There's more to the story that would freak some people out but makes others laugh no doubt.

marti8 · 21-06-2011 4:31pm

Wicknight wrote: »

He saw a woman through a window, it seems the natural conclusion was that he saw a woman through a window. The fact that he couldn't see her again when he moved to the next window can be explained by any number of completely normal explanations, the most obvious to my mind being that as he was moving she simply turned around, or ducked down below the window.

It takes a particular desire to believe in the supernatural to take such a story as evidence of ghosts walking the Earth.

Like I said, we are silly species.

As I said the layout didn't allow for that.

Wibbs · 21-06-2011 4:32pm

Beruthiel wrote: »

So, I attempted to input both comments into my brain, and, nope, it's just not working for me.
Does not compute.

yea I'm getting an oul syntax error in my program too.

That said, I would be open to certain phenomena described as supernatural that may have a natural explanation. Do classical ghosts exist? I'd say that would be unlikely, but outside of hallucination say I dunno a quantum(I know pseudo catchall

) ghosting of a person or thing leaking through that's observable momentarily? Possibly. Time is somewhat of an illusion. If we could stand outside the laws of the universe we would observe all that was, is and will be at the same "time", so however unlikely it might happen(very very rarely though). Like telling the future? Again massively unlikely in a cross my palm with silver way, but the ability to predict otherwise random particle decay, or more influence it in the future? Possibly. Reincarnation? Again massively unlikely in the classical sense, but in the sense that more than one mind has and may exist in the future that self identifies as "you" but with no connection between those "yous"? Possibly. If so, all of the above could have a rational explanation grounded in the reality of our universe. They wouldn't be precluded by science necessarily, save for a solid wall that stops breaking of causality(unless there is a multiverse).

Then again there would be a caveat on all that by me identifying as "hard agnostic", rather than "hard atheist". A vegetarian that eats fish basically

well eggs anyway.

Mark Hamill · 21-06-2011 4:32pm

marti8 wrote: »

1) I cann tell the difference between a photo and a person. Disatnce between me and the window, 15ft maybe.

15ft, but upwards, through a window and with a light shining on it. It couldn't have been a photo or a good painting (with a light obscuring detail)?

marti8 wrote: »

2) No, she did go out of my line of sight when she passed the window, I then went at once to the next window and there was nobody there.

She passed one window, you went to next, so if she turned around and walked back, close to the wall, your line of sight would have been blocked by the kitchen wall.

marti8 wrote: »

Not only that there was no woamn staying at the hostel at that time, in fact I was the only person there that morning. Why am I so sure it was a woman - you know you're right, maybe it was man in drag Body shape, posture, dress, face, hair. The face, hair are a blur - dress I recall, posture was upright, walking purposefully and body shape, well, she didn't have a beer belly.

The hostel the only building for miles around? The men staying there (well the owner and anyone who worked there) where all fat? How are you so sure that the thing you caught a glimpse of was really a woman? It was a glimpse, was it not?

marti8 wrote: »

3) I don't calim any religious significance, that is what makes it different. I don't see angels or saints or any of that. Don't believe in that stuff.

What significance you or anyone else attributes is irrelevant. The fact is that the circumstances and the basic idea (a person) of what you saw are the same for you as for people who have claimed to have seen saints. So, how can we, while disregarding the religious claims, be expected to accept yours?

Zombrex · 21-06-2011 4:34pm

marti8 wrote: »

As I said the layout didn't allow for that.

And it is impossible that that assessment is inaccurate?

Which is more likely, ghosts exists or you didn't accurately assess the layout?

One of the most common explanations for supernatural phenomena is "user error" (as we say in the software business), someone making an assessment of something that is mistaken. Because humans also tend to view their judgment as more accurate than it actually is, this tends to be some what unsatisfactory for the person involved, but for the rest of us it provides an explanation that does not require that we re-write the laws of physics.

21-06-2011 4:34pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What significance you or anyone else attributes is irrelevant. The fact is that the circumstances and the basic idea (a person) of what you saw are the same for you as for people who have claimed to have seen saints. So, how can we, while disregarding the religious claims, be expected to accept yours?

I thought we only had a problem with religious beliefs when they try to inflict them on everyone else?

Mark Hamill · 21-06-2011 4:35pm

marti8 wrote: »

As I said the layout didn't allow for that.

The layout prevented people from turning around?

marti8 · 21-06-2011 4:35pm

Wicknight wrote: »

You asked for a rational explanation. Whether it was or wasn't a hallucination, that is a rational explanation for it.

If you ignore it this you just demonstrate you don't really care for rational explanations, and are just wishing to believe what you want to be true.

Define rational? Something which has to be scientifically proven?

I'm not ignoring it, I am simply disagreeing with it. Just as others are disagreeing with my rational explantion. If you believe in ghosts then the paranormal is rational.

Mark Hamill · 21-06-2011 4:37pm

bluewolf wrote: »

I thought we only had a problem with religious beliefs when they try to inflict them on everyone else?

I dont understand your point.

lolo62 · 21-06-2011 4:39pm

it would seem then that the word atheist is subjective...

how do you define being agnostic atheist...?

Zombrex · 21-06-2011 4:42pm

marti8 wrote: »

Define rational? Something which has to be scientifically proven?

No.

First of all science doesn't prove things.

Secondly, something is rational if it works within reason, ie you have to have a reason to suppose it. People hallucinate. You are a person. You can hallucinate. It is possible you did. This is a reasonable thing to concluse.

marti8 wrote: »

I'm not ignoring it, I am simply disagreeing with it.

You are ignoring it, you demanding that he prove that you did hallucinate, which is not what you asked. Hallucination was a perfectly valid answer to your question.

But I suspect you weren't really interested in perfectly valid answers to your question, which is why you gave such a rash response.

marti8 wrote: »

Just as others are disagreeing with my rational explantion.

Your "rational" explanation has no reason behind it. We don't know ghosts exist. We don't know people can see ghosts. You have no reason to suppose it was a ghost. You seem to be only supposing it was because you want ghosts to be real. That is not rational.

marti8 wrote: »

If you believe in ghosts then the paranormal is rational.

If you believe in ghosts you aren't being rational in the first place.

marti8 · 21-06-2011 4:44pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

15ft, but upwards, through a window and with a light shining on it. It couldn't have been a photo or a good painting (with a light obscuring detail)?

She passed one window, you went to next, so if she turned around and walked back, close to the wall, your line of sight would have been blocked by the kitchen wall.

The hostel the only building for miles around? The men staying there (well the owner and anyone who worked there) where all fat? How are you so sure that the thing you caught a glimpse of was really a woman? It was a glimpse, was it not?

What significance you or anyone else attributes is irrelevant. The fact is that the circumstances and the basic idea (a person) of what you saw are the same for you as for people who have claimed to have seen saints. So, how can we, while disregarding the religious claims, be expected to accept yours?

1) As I said I know the difference between a painting and a person.

2) The layout didn't allow for what you are suggesting.

3) How do I know it was a woman? How fo you know you're looking at a screen?

4) Couldn't care less if you accept what I say, lol, what makes you think I do? I am simply saying I am an atheist who believes in so-called "ghosts". Be all and end all.

marti8 · 21-06-2011 4:49pm

Wicknight wrote: »

And it is impossible that that assessment is inaccurate?

Which is more likely, ghosts exists or you didn't accurately assess the layout?

One of the most common explanations for supernatural phenomena is "user error" (as we say in the software business), someone making an assessment of something that is mistaken. Because humans also tend to view their judgment as more accurate than it actually is, this tends to be some what unsatisfactory for the person involved, but for the rest of us it provides an explanation that does not require that we re-write the laws of physics.

Of course it's "possible", I'm not disputing that, what I am saying is I don't believe I made an error, I believe I saw a "ghost". Which is more likely you ask - given my cognisance of my surroundings, given the other experiences and the paranormal activity the previous night, I'll go with the former.

lolo62 · 21-06-2011 4:50pm

Wicknight wrote: »

If you believe in ghosts you aren't being rational in the first place.

thats a matter of opinion

marti8 · 21-06-2011 4:53pm

lolo62 wrote: »

it would seem then that the word atheist is subjective...

how do you define being agnostic atheist...?

The word atheist isn't subjective at all, atheism refers soley to the lack of belief in a deity, a god. Some atheists may say "God doesn't exist, absolutely not, no way, impossible"....now I'm not one of those, I say "I don't believe in a god but I have no absolute knowledge as to whether a god exists or not". I am atheist, agnostic atheist.

Dades · 21-06-2011 4:55pm

marti8, it's a shame you had to go an mention that you believe in ghosts, because you made a valid point that has been made before and supported by me.

I was never a fan of the name Atheist Ireland because it lumps in all atheists in most people's eyes with the objectives that they promote.

Instead you've kinda weakened the (technically true) point that atheists can believe in the supernatural by being set upon by a bunch of atheists that believe your belief in ghosts is irrational.

That's life!

21-06-2011 4:56pm

Dades wrote: »

marti8, it's a shame you had to go an mention that you believe in ghosts, because you made a valid point that has been made before and supported by me.

I was never a fan of the name Atheist Ireland because it lumps in all atheists in most people's eyes with the objectives that they promote.

Instead you've kinda weakened the (technically true) point that atheists can believe in the supernatural by being set upon by a bunch of atheists that believe your belief in ghosts is irrational.

That's life!

Thank goodness, someone else

marti8 · 21-06-2011 4:59pm

Wicknight wrote: »

No.

First of all science doesn't prove things.

Secondly, something is rational if it works within reason, ie you have to have a reason to suppose it. People hallucinate. You are a person. You can hallucinate. It is possible you did. This is a reasonable thing to concluse.

You are ignoring it, you demanding that he prove that you did hallucinate, which is not what you asked. Hallucination was a perfectly valid answer to your question.

But I suspect you weren't really interested in perfectly valid answers to your question, which is why you gave such a rash response.

Your "rational" explanation has no reason behind it. We don't know ghosts exist. We don't know people can see ghosts. You have no reason to suppose it was a ghost. You seem to be only supposing it was because you want ghosts to be real. That is not rational.

If you believe in ghosts you aren't being rational in the first place.

Science doesn't prove things? Really? lol

Rationality and logic are subjective or didn't you know that? I am suggesting that if he claims it was a hallucination that he back it up rather than simply dismissing it as "oh, yep, a hallucination", lol. If that attitude were to be adopted everyone could go around saying everything was a hallucination, lol.

marti8 · 21-06-2011 5:01pm

Dades wrote: »

marti8, it's a shame you had to go an mention that you believe in ghosts, because you made a valid point that has been made before and supported by me.

I was never a fan of the name Atheist Ireland because it lumps in all atheists in most people's eyes with the objectives that they promote.

Instead you've kinda weakened the (technically true) point that atheists can believe in the supernatural by being set upon by a bunch of atheists that believe your belief in ghosts is irrational.

That's life!

Atheist civil war, lol. They have the guns but I have the invisible WMD's

But seriously, I don't see how I've weakened the point that atheists can believe in the supernatural/paranormal? Atheism soley refers to a lack of belief in a deity, nothing else.

lolo62 · 21-06-2011 5:07pm

...thanks for that i get it now... agnostic is in relation to atheist not seperate...

so basically youre argument here is that atheism is not an ideology just the absence of belief in gods and AI are attaching an agenda by working from a kind of re-definition of the word? ....thats what i meant when i said atheist is subjective

Tonyandthewhale · 21-06-2011 5:14pm

In an earlier post you described a black or brown dress. I think you also said at one point that the hair and face is a blur. Colour and faces are easily perceptible phenomena for the human eye and brain since they are everyday stimuli. Since you didn't manage to take in these basic details there are I think three logical conclusions we can make:

1) You did identify the colour of the dress and saw her face but have since forgotten. If you forgot these basic details it's just as likely that your recollection of the layout of the building or the speed she was travelling at is less than 100% precise (or at least more likely that this is the case than that the dead can come back to life and haunt hostels).

2) You saw a movement (a low-flying bird, a plastic bag, anything really) in your perhiperal vision (the fovea accounts for only 1% of your visiual field and the para-fovea up to about 3%, the rest is low resolution perhiperal vision so don't underestimate the human ability to not look at stuff properly). As such you have a visual stimulus and as we all know the visual system is tied to the perceptual system (otherwise we'd see things but not be able to identify them), the perceptual system unravels the stimulli sent from the eyes and maps and uses past experience and conjecture to map it to an event or object. That's why when we see a shape or a movement out of the corner of the eye, the brain tries to explain it for us and comes up with woman or ghost or whatever.

3) It was a ghost.

Zillah · 21-06-2011 5:15pm

You cannot have expected to walk onto the A&A forum, declare that you believe in ghosts and hope it would not become a bottle neck in discussion.

You clearly want to believe in ghosts, and you are falling foul of the same brain-flaws that the religious do. The fact that your ludicrous supernatural beliefs don't involve an organised power structure does not make them any less ridiculous.

In the first story you were a child. Children are idiots. Really, their critical faculties are completely undeveloped. Add to that the effect that time has on the human memory and there is no reason whatsoever to take this story seriously in any way.

The second story is literally you seeing a shape out of the corner of your eye. Even if we accept your testimony at face value all we can rationally say is "Wow, that was weird"...it would be entirely unreasonable to say "This is evidence that the human spirit survives death and we can see them every now and then". The brain fits things into patterns, that's why a coat rack looks like a person in the dark, and why a shadow, a wind-blown-bag, a bird or even just a temporary arrangement of architecture can look like a woman out of the corner of your eye.

The third story involves sleep. The human brain is an absolute mess during sleep. Any story involving sleep should be viewed with extreme scepticism, it is well established that hallucinations of all sorts can happen during sleep, and immediately before and after. Just because you feel you were awake does not mean your brain was back to full functionality.

Basically you are a religious person. You use all the same excuses and fall victim to the same mistakes. Your religious belief just happens to be non-mainstream. Finally, these stories don't count as empiricism, they are just observation. Flawed, subjective, human observation, known to be completely unreliable.

Daegerty · 21-06-2011 5:15pm

Naturalism is the way to go. Naked chicks ftw

Mark Hamill · 21-06-2011 5:18pm

marti8 wrote: »

1) As I said I know the difference between a painting and a person.

I'm sure you do. However you have not shown that you didn't make that reasonable mistake at that specific time.

marti8 wrote: »

2) The layout didn't allow for what you are suggesting.

You have not described the event in such a way that precludes my suggestion. I cant think of anything that would stop the person from turning around, and assuming you were inside looking out (as you claimed) then once the person reached a certain distance from side of the window, you would not have been able to see them. This is a top down view of what I'm describing (the closer you are to the window, the sharper the angle of your line of sight, but even pressed up to it, there would still be a blind spot.

.......................\ ............................... /
Person...............\............................../ -
_______________\_______________/___

.....................................You

( / represents line of sight, full stops are to make the spacing work)

marti8 wrote: »

3) How do I know it was a woman? How fo you know you're looking at a screen?

I am looking at it. You, however, only got a glimpse of what you saw.

marti8 wrote: »

4) Couldn't care less if you accept what I say, lol, what makes you think I do? I am simply saying I am an atheist who believes in so-called "ghosts". Be all and end all.

This is a discussion forum, people will discuss what you say. You claimed your case was different from similar theists claims, as they claimed angels or saints. However, ignoring the specific entity you both claim to see, both cases can be attributed to the waking dreams scenario described earlier, the witness attributing "angels" or ghosts" to it doesn't change that.

lolo62 · 21-06-2011 5:19pm

Zillah wrote: »

Children are idiots. Really, their critical faculties are completely undeveloped.

wow

marti8 · 21-06-2011 5:33pm

Tonyandthewhale wrote: »

In an earlier post you described a black or brown dress. I think you also said at one point that the hair and face is a blur. Colour and faces are easily perceptible phenomena for the human eye and brain since they are everyday stimuli. Since you didn't manage to take in these basic details there are I think three logical conclusions we can make:

1) You did identify the colour of the dress and saw her face but have since forgotten. If you forgot these basic details it's just as likely that your recollection of the layout of the building or the speed she was travelling at is less than 100% precise (or at least more likely that this is the case than that the dead can come back to life and haunt hostels).

2) You saw a movement (a low-flying bird, a plastic bag, anything really) in your perhiperal vision (the fovea accounts for only 1% of your visiual field and the para-fovea up to about 3%, the rest is low resolution perhiperal vision so don't underestimate the human ability to not look at stuff properly). As such you have a visual stimulus and as we all know the visual system is tied to the perceptual system (otherwise we'd see things but not be able to identify them), the perceptual system unravels the stimulli sent from the eyes and maps and uses past experience and conjecture to map it to an event or object. That's why when we see a shape or a movement out of the corner of the eye, the brain tries to explain it for us and comes up with woman or ghost or whatever.

3) It was a ghost.

Never said the dead can come back to life, lol. That'd be the Zombie Survival section I think

As for the speed she was moving at - fast, purposeful. Anyway, I'll take door number 3!

21-06-2011 5:36pm

marti8 wrote: »

Never said the dead can come back to life, lol. That'd be the Zombie Survival section I think As for the speed she was moving at - fast, purposeful. Anyway, I'll take door number 3!

You didn't answer my question:

Why do you conclude that your experiences--your third experience specifically--has a foundation in the paranormal when I've just given you an explanation which requires less assumptions?

marti8 · 21-06-2011 5:42pm

Zillah wrote: »

You cannot have expected to walk onto the A&A forum, declare that you believe in ghosts and hope it would not become a bottle neck in discussion.

Basically you are a religious person. You use all the same excuses and fall victim to the same mistakes. Your religious belief just happens to be non-mainstream. Finally, these stories don't count as empiricism, they are just observation. Flawed, subjective, human observation, known to be completely unreliable.

A&A forum? Tell me exactly what you think that stands for, no wait, I'll tell you, Atheist and Agnostic.........not a Naturalist love-in, lol. I used to be agnostic and these days I am atheist. Atheism doesn't exclude the belief in the supernatural, it soley excludes the belief in a deity. I do not claim "ghosts" are deities.

Basically I'm a religious person? Lol, where did you pluick that from? Not only am I not a religious person, in fact I am quite anti-religion. And yes the experiences I've mentioned do count as empiricism in the philosophical sense. I am not speaking of empirical proof/research.

MagicMarker · 21-06-2011 5:47pm

OP, are you a 12 year old girl or do you actually laugh out loud at the end of every sentence?

Turtwig · 21-06-2011 5:48pm

MagicMarker wrote: »

OP, are you a 12 year old girl or do you actually laugh out loud at the end of every sentence?

marti8 · 21-06-2011 5:48pm

gvn wrote: »

You didn't answer my question:

Why do you conclude that your experiences--your third experience specifically--has a foundation in the paranormal when I've just given you an explanation which requires less assumptions?

Why do you think your explanation requires less assumptions? I wouldn't see it that way.

marti8 · 21-06-2011 5:50pm

MagicMarker wrote: »

OP, are you a 12 year old girl or do you actually laugh out loud at the end of every sentence?

Why would you like me to be 12 year old girl, daddy?

Now I'm laughing out loud :P

21-06-2011 5:55pm

marti8 wrote: »

Why do you think your explanation requires less assumptions? I wouldn't see it that way.

Really?

That's the best you can do?

So, given:

a) People can hallucinate. These hallucincations become especially prominent during the periods before and after sleep, and

b) There exists a supernatural element of the human. This supernatural element can live on after physical death. This supernatural entity can interact with the physical, natural world. You witnessed one of these interactions.

You believe that option b) requires less assumptions?

robindch · 21-06-2011 5:58pm

Malty_T wrote: »

Not an image I'd have attached if I'd put myself down as a catholic on the census

marti8 · 21-06-2011 6:01pm

gvn wrote: »

Really?

That's the best you can do?

So, given:

a) People can hallucinate. These hallucincations become especially prominent during the periods before and after sleep, and

b) There exists a supernatural element of the human. This supernatural element can live on after physical death. This supernatural entity can interact with the physical, natural world. You witnessed one of these interactions.

You believe that option b) requires less assumptions?

Depending on the circumsatnces, yes. And as I said I dont know what exactly ghosts are, I can hazard a guess that they are what you've called the supernatural element of people but that's just a guess. But it's logical that they are, yes. But then we're back to the defintion of logic, what is and what isn't and on it goes. But all this has nothing whatsoever to with atheism. I still remain an atheist, whether or not I fit neatly into the definition of atheists that some others may hold is totally upto them however if they believe atheism encompasses anything other than the lack of belief in a deity they are very much mistaken.

Atheism or Naturalism?

Comments