I was an athiest...

File: 1471710500987.png (325KB, 778x688px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 778x688px

>>18104441
fellow atheist here its sort of hard to find. I too would love to seriously written information that provides facts and not wacky theories

>>18104461
There are no facts, there is no science, because ghosts are not real.

What does atheism have to do with the supernatural?

>>18104441
Unless it was a ghost god, there is nothing about ghosts that calls atheism into question.

Look, you can believe what you want, God vs No God.
The spiritual realm however is alive and real. I was more agnostic than anything until I inherited a home where many deaths have occurred.
I live there now and at first it was more of a feeling or vibe but then things began to move on there own.
Many bumps in the night and I'm open to believe I've been wrong about it all. Religion is man made the things I've seen are far beyond that.
Don't fear it or it will grow
Acknowledge it and move on
You already have proof stop questioning it.

>>18104487
This. And I'm not a skeptard. Ghosts have no *physical* reality. They exist as forms comprised of subtle energy, not any of the physical plane energies. There are no scientific instruments which can detect them. In b4 aura photography and the like. Just no. Ghosts are sensed by humans just like we sense atmospheres or energies.

There also seems to be another category of apparition which is, where a place which has a history carries an energetic imprint which is picked up on by humans.

I don't know if there are reliable books about ghosts, but don't bother looking for the science-based ones.

>>18104441
since you are just curious about ghosts, you are still an atheist.

And I'm afraid, I have to disappoint you. You will always have a kooky percentage and there is absolutely no sound explanation for anything.

That is unless you explain it with things that arent ghosts

>>18104441
>>18104461
you both need to actually read the definition of the word "atheist" before you claim to be one.

What you both are, is skeptical (you might also be atheist, but that's not the issue here).

The problem with skeptics, is when they get all absolutist or lose perspective. This happens because despite a tendency to "disbelieve" much of philosophy, they seem to require one. If you want to claim to be skeptics please read up on Descarte and Hume, and more modern interpretations of ancient greek theory.

Its important to note that for even basic science to function, they NEED to abandon the absolutist skepticism that so many "skeptics" today seem to adhere to. This is why science uses the "Basal Assumptions". Because without them, literally nothing can ever be known.

My point in all of this is that you seem to be mistaken about your own beliefs, which leaves me questioning what you could possibly know about other peoples beliefs.

Lastly, and Im sure you've heard it argued before: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" as this anon said:
>>18104753

If we simply lack the capability to detect them, or to measure their effects on our reality, it does not mean they don't exist.

Please go study Hume and understand his saying: "A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence". It is fine to say: "I lack evidence for them, so I choose to operate as if they do not exist." as long as you recognize the possibility of their existence outside your ability to gather evidence for it.

Abandon your absolutist skepticism that you are confusing with atheism, this is a pop phenomenon that needs to die because it is producing un-educated "skeptics" and "atheists" that are worse than hardliner deists or even moonbats. We need to abandon hard skepticism for literally anything to work, stop subscribing to it, the rest of humanity did thousands of years ago.

You really won't find any literature that will suffice for you.
There is plenty of writings out there, but the problem is that you won't believe it unless you experience it.
For example, you don't believe in poltergeists until you have had an encounter with one that was irrefutable. Truth is all perspective.

>>18104871
>dude just believe any bullshit, open your mind lmao

>>18104890
1/10 at least I replied.

Being skeptical is fine, it's healthy and it is the position that any sane person should default to for any new information. It's literally how we have made all scientific progress. I am not advocating abandoning all rational and skeptical thought. Nor am I advocating that people just "believe any bullshit".

I am stating that absolutist skepticism is not only a useless philosophy, it is completely counter-intuitive read up on the skeptikoi and carnesdes to see how this philosophy ultimately defeats itself. Recently it has even become confused with atheism, which has nothing to do with skeptical philosophy. One is an epistemological position the other is a religious position.

>>18104931
*carneades

>>18104931
>If we simply lack the capability to detect them, or to measure their effects on our reality, it does not mean they don't exist.
>Nor am I advocating that people just "believe any bullshit".
What is it now? Are people allowed to be sceptic about something, that has no evidence or do we need to just believe it?

>>18104441
As far as I can gather they are residual energy from people. Their left over potential holding its form until it is depleted and dissipates. This is why people believe that its unfinished business that tends to 'make' gohst or stop people from 'crossing over' because our will is what directs our energy and if you don't achieve what it is your will was set on before your died your energy will be drawn to your last wills desire.

File: 1470173832822.jpg (115KB, 537x700px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 537x700px

>>18104441
So what actually happened to you is my question, must have been something pretty profound?

>>18104948
are you seriously that black and white?

Ok fine, have you been to Paris? or Egypt? How can you be certain they exist? Perhaps you should disbelieve in Paris or Egypt too? Even if you had been there, your senses are generally untrustworthy, how can you be certain you are not delusional?

What I said was that simply because we lack the ability to detect them or measure their effects, does not mean that they do not exist. You can do a few things with this information:

"Since I see no evidence for their existence, I will operate assuming that they do not exist, but reserve for the possibility that they do"
or
"Although I see no evidence for their existence, I feel there is enough circumstantial or anecodtal evidence to constitute a cautious belief in their existence"
or
"I believe in them regardless of the evidence for or against their existence because I never ask questions"

I think you can see which one I adhere to, and what I am advocating others at least consider.
Youre more than allowed to be skeptical about something that has no direct evidence, but confusing "skeptic" with "IT DOESNT EXIST BECAUSE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE" is stupid and betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how both philosophy and science work.

>>18104976
>How can you be certain they exist?
There are tons of evidence. What are you on about?
Are you making a point about metaphysical scepticism here? Well, I also think this is an intelectual dead-end. But why bring it up? What has that to do with anything itt?

You cant just compare being sceptic about something paranormal (that has no evidence) with being sceptic about something real.

>>18105006
>There are tons of evidence.
anecdotal or circumstantial, unless you have physically gone to that place and conducted falsifiable tests to prove their existence, you need to assume that they do not exist. That is hardliner sketpcism, it is also fucking stupid.

>Are you making a point about metaphysical scepticism here?
I am making a point about knowing what you believe before you claim to believe it. Also, how to go about looking into things that you aren't certain about.

>But why bring it up?
Because its relevant to the discussion.

>You cant just compare being sceptic about something paranormal (that has no evidence)
ok, again: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and there is evidence for the existence of some kind of phenomenon we call "ghosts" what exactly it is, we don't know and probably can't yet measure or understand. It does not mean it doesn't exist simply because we lack categorical understanding.

>with being sceptic about something real.
Of course I can, I just did. Very recently we had no fucking idea how atomic energy, quantum states, or high energy particle physics worked, or even that they existed. It would appear that anyone at that time who said "they dont exist" would have been fucking wrong, now wouldnt they? Scientists who operated according to basal assumptions (beliefs which have no evidence, but are required for the function of science), went forward, researched them, and came up with evidence. That is how knowledge, science, and philosophy works.

It is a perfectly acceptable comparison. At one point we thought the movement of the sun across the sky was a paranormal phenomenon. Who is to say that some day the phenomenon of "ghosts" will not be the same?

>>18105029
>"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
Yeah, so what? I mean it is true, but you can say this about literally any bullshit. There is no such thing as "evidence of absence" in the first place really. In most cases it is impossible to prove a negative when it comes to the pure existence of something.

>t is a perfectly acceptable comparison
I dont think it is.
"I dont believe in this thing, that has no evidence or testable hypothesis"
Is something completely different to
"I dont believe in this city, which is obviously real (tons of different independently made evidence), because maybe I live inside a simulation or something"

Those are two completely different schools of scepticism

>>18105029
>At one point we thought the movement of the sun across the sky was a paranormal phenomenon
Forgot to adress this.
This is not a good point, since the sceptical approach wouldnt have been to explain it with something paranormal.
The stars are also open to see for everybody. People can make observations/measurements. Thats why we now know so much about stars but still know shit about ghosts

>>18105059
> can say this about literally any bullshit.
except bullshit which apparently exists.

>There is no such thing as "evidence of absence"
oh no? then everything should theoretically exist. What argument are you making here?

> it is impossible to prove a negative
So then you need to accept that ghosts probably exist since you cant prove they DONT exist? That seems like flawed logic.

>which is obviously real
by what measure of evidence?
>because maybe I live inside a simulation or something
like you said, you cant prove it to be negative therefore you have to assume its true? right?

>Those are two completely different schools of scepticism
That is EXACTLY the argument I am making.

> the sceptical approach wouldnt have been to explain it with something paranormal.
ohhh shit are you about to catch on?

> Thats why we now know so much about stars but still know shit about ghosts
god damn you were so close.

Ok see, we know so much abotu stars because we made devices which can observe them, for a long time we thought they were pin pricks through some sort of dome overhead, which by the senses we had at the time, seemed plausible and was rational. People doubted it, made devices and proved what they really were.

What I am implying is that simply because we have no evidence for ghosts, does not mean: A. they dont exist, or b. that they do exist but are not what we think they are.

So you need to stay skeptical but entertain the notion that they exist in order to understand what they are. Is this making sense yet?

>>18105110
>oh no?
no. as I said "In most cases it is impossible to prove a negative when it comes to the pure existence of something."

>So then you need to accept that ghosts probably exist since you cant prove they DONT exist?
What? How does it mean that? It means the opposite of that. It means, that I dont have to accept ghosts when there is no evidence and that "you cant prove it wrong" is a moot point and not an argument against my stance

>by what measure of evidence?
Do we really want to go over the evidence there is for [city] to exist?

>like you said, you cant prove it to be negative therefore you have to assume its true? right?
No. Not at all. We just cant assume it has to be wrong. Yes, maybe you are just a brain in a tank. But as I said, metaphysical scepticism is a dead-end and you already know why, I guess.


>ohhh shit are you about to catch on?
Why so snarky? You brought up that comparison and I thought it was flawed.

>People doubted it, made devices and proved what they really were
Yeah exactly. Like I said, there is a fundamental difference between stars and ghosts

>that they do exist but are not what we think they are
Well, they arent really ghosts then. The sceptic approach here, is to explain it with known phenomena and concepts

Personally, I'm more on the atheist side, but am partially agnostic I guess...but, I believe ghosts, and all that jazz has something to do quantum based shit. Whether, it's residual energy and through some quantum effect they still sort of exist. Maybe as a quantum gif so to speak.

>>18104753
Good stuff.

Ah, so OP was yet another bullshitter looking for a pointless argument. Proof threads are always trolls.

File: ghosts-met.jpg (18KB, 348x525px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 348x525px

>>18104973
WHAT HAPPENED: This a sounds like a stupid horror movie, but I've worked at a bank for about a year, and nothing weird happened until a few weeks ago. A small hole appeared in the parking lot. Management says it's a sink hole. Two nights, while closed, our alarms have gone off, and something's tampering with our ATM. But surveillance footage shows nothing. Then, a few days later, a local historian stops by and casually inquires about the sink hole, and then unjokingly tells us that our branch was built in an Indian burial mound (I kid you not).

Then, last week, while closing, our vault automatically locked itself. Minutes later a security door swung open (one needs a pass code to do this) and then slammed shut. Then a filing cabinet tumbled over, as if someone pushed it. My two coworkers also witnesses this and were equally freaked.

A geological (shifting sinkhole) theory could easily explain the tripped alarms. The vault handle and filing cabinet, however, are very heavy and would both probably be some of the last items to fall over, say, if there was something like a massive earthquake. There are hundreds of other objects that would have been more likely to tip. Further, the security door was locked, and could only be opened by someone punching in a pass code. The way it so abruptly was flung open and then shut was uncanny.

Yesterday, a rarely closet door opened by itself. I shut it, and asked a co-worker if she left it open. She said "no." A few seconds later, a repeated knocking sound came out of the closet. Right when I opened the door the knocking stopped.

>>18105847
Oh, I'm the OP by the way.

File: giphy.gif (2MB, 444x333px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 444x333px

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritism

I strongly recommend "the spirits book"
Just open it anywhere and read 3 pages.
I doubt you'll be able to forget it.

http://www.allankardec.com/Allan_Kardec/Le_livre_des_esprits/lesp_us.pdf

>>18105896

I meant - read 3 pages of questions and answers. This book is formulated in humane questions made to "the spirit of the truth", which answer them. If you curious how this works, just read the 1st chapter.

File: 1592bbf02516bb319577d56a585a3c44.jpg (97KB, 736x557px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 736x557px

>>18105847

I'm the OP (again): WHAT HAPPENED TO MY WIFE:

We've moved from a rental house to a home we just bought. She was at the rental alone, cleaning and she heard a man say, "Bec." Which is short for her name "Rebecca." She fearfully looked around, but didn't see anyone. So she kept cleaning. About an half hour later, she clearly heard the man's voice again, "Bec... Love your family, Bec."

Most people call her "Becky," and or "Rebecca," but only one person has ever called her "Bec," and that was her father, who died when she was a toddler - 32 years ago.

It's also odd that she and I are having these weird experiences around the same time, yet at different locations.

Atheism was an invention.

>>18104521
I heard the more you fear the stronger they (evil spiruts) get how true is this?

>>18104521
>>18107202
very true.
take it from someone who also moved into a home with a lot of sad and tragic history. I attempted the whole god thing to see if it would work.
It did not.
The best advice I got was to not fear it, tell it to leave, or ignore it. The more you fear it, the more you give it attention, the stronger it will get. What may start as foot steps in the night and knocks on your door will turn to objects falling, things slamming. I think it may have to do with the ghost getting your attention. When it realizes it can "communicate" , it will do ANYTHING to keep you listening. Anything to maybe get you to understand it.

giles corey the album

no seriously you're better off reading a various assortment of serious literary, "kooks," (C. S. Lewis, Jack Kerouac, PKD, maybe some Jung. Obviously you want the relevant texts but I'm not holding your hand on that one, sorry friend) comparing it with traditional folklore all around the world and finally reading THUh BIBLE (fully aware that for a unscrupulous blasphemer such as yourself doing so is sheer folly. I recommend the book of matthew) if you want a decent picture of demons, spirits, etc...

back in the day when somebody was flailing on the floor convulsing wildly everybody jumped straight to it being demonic possession. that's what you do when you don't know what the cause of something is, you come up with one.

nowadays people say it's chemicals. everything is just fucking chemicals, even your perception is utter bullshit and one day humanity is going to crack the magic code underlying all of existence. it'll be the rapture of the new faith.

the long and short of it is if you want a simple solution to the spirit issue you probably would have heard it by now. that spiritism book looks real nice.
>>18107191
tell rebecca to stop being a cunt to her family

>>18107195
Just like religion

>>18107225
>tell rebecca to stop being a cunt to her family

Funny, I didn't take it that way, as I think of her as good mom/wife/sibling.

Her thought was, "Be good to my family? That's it? Of all the otherworldly advice you could give, why such a non-brainer."

>>18107240
it was a shitpost, my psychic powers don't work over the internet, sadly

>>18107240
Oh, and, "Has this ghost dude been watching us having sex?"

>>18104441
Exactly what the fuck has atheism to do with ghosts? I'm atheist and i believe in the possibility of intelligence in other planes.

>>18107235
Not exactly.

>>18104441
"Ghost science"
Fucking hell...