How can an atheist believe in ghosts?

[Vague_Boy]

This would imply that the atheist believes there's an afterlife wouldn't it? Why would an atheist believe in an afterlife?

 

An afterlife and a deity are not synonymous.

 

The number of threads wittering on about what atheists do and don't believe on SF is quite bizarre.

[Tony]

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. As such atheism simply perpetuates human fallibility.

 

Dawkinsism has a logic fault though to his credit I recall that even he is largely misquoted as being 100% atheist.

[shortcrust]

I don't believe the universe issued from the burp of a giant space duck. Yet that isn't impossible. Does that then make me a blind believer in the non existence of a giant burping space duck creator?

 

Yes, it does! It may seem like a silly thing to say, but the logic is sound. You believe that something doesn't exist despite it's existence being possible, and despite having no evidence to support your belief.

 

However, let's be clear. I'm not saying that the sensible thing to do is to be open minded about the existence of the giant space duck creator.

[danot]

An afterlife and a deity are not synonymous.

 

The number of threads wittering on about what atheists do and don't believe on SF is quite bizarre.

What's bizzare about it?

[medusa]

Quite apart from anything else, it's perfectly possible and completely normal for a person to hold conflicting views on any topic.

 

How many people hold strong views on religion, race, respect, crime and punishment and then find that they have to build in to those views exceptions, provisos or separate clauses to take account of the alternate views that they hold? (e.g. I believe that all people convicted of killing another person should be executed. Oh, apart from him, her and them).

[donkey]

I haven't said- "all atheists believe in ghosts". I said- The favourate line of argument of the SF atheist when discrediting the argument of the theist is- 'there's no evidence to prove God exists, therefore God doesn't exist. Which raises the question- how can an atheist(not necessarily you)believe in ghosts?

 

But you are inferring that the atheists who use those arguments are the same ones who believe in ghosts, otherwise there is no connection between them, beyond the fact that they both describe themselve as atheists. Similarly, some christians believe in fairies. You would have to ask those indvidual chritians about it. What would be the point in asking christians in general how a christian can believe in fairies? It's red herring.

[danot]

But you are inferring that the atheists who use those arguments are the same ones who believe in ghosts, otherwise there is no connection between them, beyond the fact that they both describe themselve as atheists. Similarly, some christians believe in fairies. You would have to ask those indvidual chritians about it. What would be the point in asking a christians in general how a christian can believe in fairies? It's red herring.

Some SF atheists who use those argments do believe in ghosts, even the afterlife. To me, that conflicts with the logical argument they use to discredit the theists argument.

[anywebsite]

SF atheists don't believe that though. They find the very idea of God rediculous, they dismiss the theists argument because the theist can produce no evidence to prove there actually is one. This has become the atheists favourate line of argument on SF. Surely, that line of argment must conflict with the reason they believe in ghosts?

 

Most atheists would be sceptical of any supernatural events.

 

However atheism isn't a religion, it's the lack of belief in any deities, it says nothing about whatever else they believe in.

[quisquose]

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. As such atheism simply perpetuates human fallibility.

 

Dawkinsism has a logic fault though to his credit I recall that even he is largely misquoted as being 100% atheist.

 

Absence of evidence is certainly not proof of absence, but I would argue that it is evidence of absence.

 

Assuming that you tell me that X exists.

 

If I look for X and don't find it, that certainly does that prove that there is no X?

 

But the more I look in places where X "ought to be" in ways and at times that X "should be likely to be there," the more confidence I can have that there is no X.

 

Assuming that you tell me that the coin you hand me is a double headed one.

 

If I flip the coin 5 times and get heads every time, that certainly does not prove that it is a double headed coin.

 

But if I flip it 1000 times and get heads every time, I'm now pretty convinced by your claim that it is a double headed coin. Whilst it's not proof, the lack of evidence for tails is evidence for its absence.

[Tony]

It is not evidence of anything apart from a coin falling heads up 5 times or 1000 times. You might postulate a theory from your results but you cannot present it as evidence of a double headed coin.

 

Coin tossing is an incredibly bad model to use anyway since the chanceometer resets to zero on every flip, making it 100% possible to get heads 1000 times from a bog standard tuppence.