Here's an odd, theological sort of question for debate

[Answer]

Your particular religious beliefs are sort of irrelevant in this discussion - but I was speaking with my girlfriend earlier in regards to the evolution/creationism debate that's been going on recently, and she stated that she can't understand how people could believe in creationism - to which I replied something similar to "It's pretty much the same thing as you believing in Spirits and Ghosts"

and then I began to think about it. I mean, scientifically speaking - there's no real viable evidence of the existence of ghosts or spirits, and I've always assumed that if you were an Atheist that you couldn't be a dualist - but I have met self proclaimed Atheists who do believe in souls, spirits, ghosts, preternatural things with no scientific basis other than an unexplained observation.

On a fundamental level, is it really possible for the belief of such things to be consistent with the ideas of Atheism?

[Ryan 12]

i want to cum on the tits of that bitch in ur avy



fuck those are nice b00bzzz

[Exis]

I support the Jedi religion...

[Objective]

Originally Posted by Answer

On a fundamental level, is it really possible for the belief of such things to be consistent with the ideas of Atheism?

The words ''atheism'' and ''belief'' can not co-exist. They may claim they're atheists, but they're not. Unless what they've experienced can be explained by science there's no viable reason to believe they're anything else than agnostic. This comes from someone who has been in their shoes.

Atheism and ''no scientific basis other than an unexplained observation'' got nothing in common. I consider myself an agnostic that moves heavily towards atheism, but I can't under any circumstances call myself one as long as I have doubts about my own observations not coinciding with science.
If I were a true atheist I would disregard all of my observations and experiences with what many people explains as ''ghosts'' or ''spirits''. I believe they're tricks by the mind, but since I have slight doubts to that I'm no atheist although I'd like to say that I am one.

If it can be proved by science and endless tests reaching the state of a theory that's backing up their thoughts about it actually being ghosts and spirits they can go back to calling themselves atheists again.

[Witty]

You shouldn't believe anything, belief is a lack of knowledge.

People have to 'believe' in God because they can not prove his existence, they have to 'believe' in Ghosts for the same reason.

I prefer to know rather than believe. If you say you believe in something, you admit ignorance right away.

[oats]

some terminology is getting confused here. atheism doesn't exclude believing in anything other than a god. unless you are equating the common belief of what ghosts are to a god, then atheists can believe in ghosts no problem. just like they can (and many of them do) believe in aliens.

atheism is not a scientific standpoint - it's a religious standpoint. the confusion comes about because most atheists tend to arrive at that religious standpoint through science.

on the idea that people shouldn't believe anything, that's a little absurd. belief is not only a valuable and necessary component of humanity, it's also inevitable (most people tend to believe, consciously or not, that they will wake up tomorrow, for example).

[Objective]

Kind of confused @oats. I'm I, or threadstarters post, talking about getting the terminology wrong? I always assumed atheism was the complete lack of belief and 100% on scientific facts. There's a higher chance of aliens existing than not SOURCE, so atheists believing they exist kinda makes sense.

String theory and energies etc. comes to mind when we're talking about ghosts and spirits along with science, but they're still too far off to be labeled as anything else than hearsay in the atheist community. So I wouldn't label anyone believing in those sort of things as atheists.

Feel free to correct me.

[Answer]

This video is actually really relevant, and I like his comparison to Christianity and people who are Christians sharing different beliefs. I agree with these sentiments exactly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH2VZ600q2o


My underlying question here is *why* don't Atheists (and I do mean Atheists, not agnostics.) believe in God? I can only think of 2 reasons

1) They're just being dicks, attempting to go against the grain and choose not to believe in God to spite everyone who IS religious

or

2) They believe that there is little to no evidence supporting the idea of God, and that there are too many inconsistencies with science and religion to justify their beliefs, so they have chosen to reject the existence of a God

I think the only rational core underlying *REASON* for being an atheist in the first place is number 2. Number 1 just seems like something a 12 year old might do to be rebellious

So if 2 is true for religion, I don't see how they could believe in spirits/ghosts/souls without having a HUGE fundamental inconsistency with their ideology



Also, aliens are an entirely different story. Science and Mathematics gives way more evidence for life on other planets than it does souls or spirits.

[Witty]

Originally Posted by oats

some terminology is getting confused here. atheism doesn't exclude believing in anything other than a god. unless you are equating the common belief of what ghosts are to a god, then atheists can believe in ghosts no problem. just like they can (and many of them do) believe in aliens.

I have to disagree....based on the sheer amount of galaxies in the observable universe many scientists have come to the conclusion that it is a mathematical certainty that some other life form exists. Believing in God based on no evidence whatsoever is not the same as observing the universe and coming to a conclusion based on what can be seen. No scientist worth the title is saying they believe aliens definitely exist, that would completely go against their profession, a scientist works on facts and evidence they are just saying that the evidence points to the existence of other life. That is very different than blind belief in God or ghosts.

[Witty]

As for believing you will wake up in the morning, that's because you have woken every morning, so if you go to bed and think 'I believe I will wake in the morning' really what you are doing is making an hypothesis based on past experience. You are in bed, you don't feel unwell, you are about to sleep, it is likely you will wake in the morning.

It does not require belief.

[Objective]

Originally Posted by Answer

I don't see how they could believe in spirits/ghosts/souls without having a HUGE fundamental inconsistency with their ideology

That's because they can't. Atheists don't believe anything, they point towards facts. Spirits/ghosts/souls doesn't point towards facts. Also, atheists doesn't disregard God, spirits or ghosts as long as it can be proved, but it can't, so they don't unless new evidence comes to light.

[Witty]

Also, one more thing.

I don't even know why people of faith use the word belief...surely if they worship a God they should KNOW he is real, otherwise why are they worshipping him?

Nothing should really require belief.

[oats]

@Objective atheism only refers to not believing in the existence of a God or god. I've never heard anyone say that ghosts=gods, so by definition an atheist can believe in a ghost. Of course, this is unlikely, because the existence of ghosts is often associated with ideas of afterlife and supernatural gods etc, but it depends on what you believe a ghost is; they aren't necessarily exclusive beliefs.

I agree with you (and @Witty) that aliens are far more likely to exist, but as of today there is just as much actual scientific evidence for alien existence as there is for the existence of a deity. IE none. so in terms of evidence or data-driven analysis, aliens are equivalent to a god insofar as belief is concerned.

[oats]

Originally Posted by Witty

As for believing you will wake up in the morning, that's because you have woken every morning, so if you go to bed and think 'I believe I will wake in the morning' really what you are doing is making an hypothesis based on past experience. You are in bed, you don't feel unwell, you are about to sleep, it is likely you will wake in the morning.

It does not require belief.

as long as death is a possibility (as it always is, since it's inevitable), then yes, you are believing that you're going to wake up. you can't know the future. I understand what you're saying, but hypothesizing is just as devoid of certainty as belief is. It's just that usually hypotheses yield results, whereas beliefs do not. think of it like this: if you hypothesize that you'll wake up in the morning, and you die in your sleep, what's the difference between being wrong in your hypothesis or being wrong in your belief that you were gonna wake up?

[Witty]

Originally Posted by oats

@Objective atheism only refers to not believing in the existence of a God or god. I've never heard anyone say that ghosts=gods, so by definition an atheist can believe in a ghost. Of course, this is unlikely, because the existence of ghosts is often associated with ideas of afterlife and supernatural gods etc, but it depends on what you believe a ghost is; they aren't necessarily exclusive beliefs.

I agree with you (and @Witty) that aliens are far more likely to exist, but as of today there is just as much actual scientific evidence for alien existence as there is for the existence of a deity. IE none. so in terms of evidence or data-driven analysis, aliens are equivalent to a god insofar as belief is concerned.

I think you're missing the point tho, nobody worthy of calling themself a scientist should be saying they believe in aliens, they should not be dealing in belief, a real scientist would just observe and draw conclusions based on those observations, that is their profession. Belief is unneccessary and it doesn't have any worth as far as I can see, if you can't prove something to be true then don't speak it as truth. Why would you convince yourself something is definitely true if you do not have any evidence for it? That is very unscientific, all a real scientist should be saying is 'based on the evidence, other life forms must exist' they can not claim to believe it until they see it, at which point belief is useless because it becomes knowledge. Making an hypothesis is not the same as believing something, because if the evidence shows this hypothesis to be wrong they will change it, people with beliefs will not do so because they have no evidence in the first place.

[Fig]

Originally Posted by Witty

I think you're missing the point tho, nobody worthy of calling themself a scientist should be saying they believe in aliens, they should not be dealing in belief, a real scientist would just observe and draw conclusions based on those observations, that is their profession. Belief is unneccessary and it doesn't have any worth as far as I can see, if you can't prove something to be true then don't speak it as truth. Why would you convince yourself something is definitely true if you do not have any evidence for it? That is very unscientific, all a real scientist should be saying is 'based on the evidence, other life forms must exist' they can not claim to believe it until they see it, at which point belief is useless because it becomes knowledge. Making an hypothesis is not the same as believing something, because if the evidence shows this hypothesis to be wrong they will change it, people with beliefs will not do so because they have no evidence in the first place.

Scientists should just not believe anything? They gotta believe sometimes

[Witty]

Originally Posted by oats

as long as death is a possibility (as it always is, since it's inevitable), then yes, you are believing that you're going to wake up. you can't know the future. I understand what you're saying, but hypothesizing is just as devoid of certainty as belief is. It's just that usually hypotheses yield results, whereas beliefs do not. think of it like this: if you hypothesize that you'll wake up in the morning, and you die in your sleep, what's the difference between being wrong in your hypothesis or being wrong in your belief that you were gonna wake up?

The difference is that it simply isn't belief if you have evidence and reasoning behind it, believing something is to admit you have nothing to support it. Waking in the morning is supported by the fact you have woken every morning, based on that evidence you get the conclusion you are likely to wake, it is not evidence you will definitely wake up, it is evidence that you probably will, if you believe you will definitely wake, you are wrong in believing that because you may not.

[Witty]

Originally Posted by Fig

Scientists should just not believe anything? They gotta believe sometimes

People say scientists believe what they see, which is incorrect, when you see something the need for belief disappears and it becomes knowledge.

All belief is blind, by nature...sometimes what people perceive as belief is just their minds drawing conclusions based on evidence. Such as the belief of waking up in the morning, or the belief that it will rain in Ireland. This isn't belief, it is a subconcscious hypothesis based on experience.

[oats]

most scientists are driven by their beliefs. that's why they become scientists in the first place - they want to know for sure. One of my former professors (Yakir Aharonov) is a firm believer in aliens, and he won the national medal of science for physics. Probably 100% of the scientists who worked in the SETI believe in aliens. Like you said though, scientists have more of a rationale than the average religious believer, but that doesn't make their belief any different - it's still based off of zero actual evidence.

also, beliefs can and do change. I've changed many of my beliefs throughout my lifetime. but your point isn't lost on me - scientific beliefs are generally more fluid and flexible than religious beliefs. but there are plenty of scientists who are stubborn to change their ideas, even in the face of evidence. especially if it's ideas/theories they developed themselves.

[Answer]

Originally Posted by Witty

I think you're missing the point tho, nobody worthy of calling themself a scientist should be saying they believe in aliens, they should not be dealing in belief, a real scientist would just observe and draw conclusions based on those observations, that is their profession. Belief is unneccessary and it doesn't have any worth as far as I can see, if you can't prove something to be true then don't speak it as truth. Why would you convince yourself something is definitely true if you do not have any evidence for it? That is very unscientific, all a real scientist should be saying is 'based on the evidence, other life forms must exist' they can not claim to believe it until they see it, at which point belief is useless because it becomes knowledge. Making an hypothesis is not the same as believing something, because if the evidence shows this hypothesis to be wrong they will change it, people with beliefs will not do so because they have no evidence in the first place.

You focusing too much on semantics and the word belief. I could say "I believe that if I leave a full bottle of water in the freezer, the liquid will eventually expand, causing the bottle (or at least part of it) to "explode" and that would have a scientific basis.

You're correct - no real scientist would EVER state that life on another planet is a certainty, but they CAN say that based on observational data in regards to the Earth's conception and organism evolution on this planet, respective to the similar conditions appearing in millions of other pockets of the universe, that they *believe* that life on other planets is *probable*