Weekly Poll: Do Ghosts Exist?
Many people believe that ghosts exist — they even claim to have encountered ghosts personally. Even some atheists believe in ghosts of some sort and I've encountered atheists who claimed to have had experiences of ghosts. The alleged existence of ghosts is often cited as evidence that there is life after death and that there is more to us than our physical bodies. Again, while such beliefs are far more common among theists, they can be found among atheists as well Do you agree that ghosts exist or do you believe that are ghosts just a myth?
As generally conceived of, ghosts would contradict much of what we know about the natural world. Indeed, they would appear to be examples of non-natural beings or forces. On the other hand, if clear evidence were found that could only be explained through the existence of "ghosts," wouldn't that suggest that they are natural phenomenon which have an impact on the natural world? How could they be both supernatural and naturally detectable? Their existence might simply require a revision of our explanations of how the natural, material world works rather than a wholesale up-ending of naturalism itself.
What do you suppose it would take for you to accept that ghosts do or even just might exist? Much of the so-called "evidence" which people try to cite wouldn't be accepted as reasonable, reliable evidence in almost any other context or for almost any other claim. Something much stronger and more secure would have to be provided in order to expect others to accept the existence of something that contradicts so much otherwise secure knowledge about what the natural world is and how it works. I don't think that most believers quite understand this and that's why they insist on continuing to provide the same, weak arguments they have offered in the past.
Since this is a site about atheism, I wonder how many people were serious that picked the answer that they have seen a ghost before!
If atheists profess to be moral, and want to be tolerant, what is wrong with Merry Christmas for folks that want to say Merry Christmas? Hmmm.
I am a thinking Christian who appreciates even handed dialogue with anyone who wants discourse.
Merry Christmas
Nothing wrong with merry christmas for me, I often say it when I forget to say happy holidays, no biggie…
Merry christmas Rob.
Perhaps because it isn’t “tolerant” when a person presumes that everyone else celebrates the same holiday.
And maybe it isn’t entirely polite to post something like this where it isn’t relevant. The subject here is the existence of ghosts, not saying Merry Christmas.
Then please make your comments on topic.
Austin,
You are SHARP as a tack and I love it.
Lynn
p.s I usually do not comment on the subject of atheism because I receive too many bites in return and I find that most people do not change on the dime, so to speak, but rather over a period of time, if at all. Especially on the topic of god. I did leave a comment about the Joey what’s-his-name’s letter though and would like you to read it. I know I’m not in the right area to mention this. No ghosts here but I will wish you a Merry Mithras even though I’m in the wrong category for that as well.
I thoroughly enjoy reading you, Austin. Love the way your brain works. Also, I signed up for your “Existentialism” course thinking perhaps I would finally be able to understand the definition now; I could not grasp it at all in college. I still don’t. I have asked some friends to explain but I still do not understand the meaning. Can you help?
My email is lynnstover@hotmail.com. Please pardon my being completely off the topic with all this, I just wanted to feel sure this reaches you. If you have the time, please do read my comment on Joey the Atheism Hater’s letter and tell me what you think. There was much more I could’ve said but thought I’d test the waters first.
I stand to be corrected, but I assume that the overwhelming majority of persons reading this blog do not have any theistic beliefs.
If that is true, then it’s disconcerting to find that more than half of them still believe in ghosts. This puts to shame my argument that theism contributes more to the adoption of stupid beliefs than atheism, because it appears that, at least with respect to ghosts, non-theists are just as prone to such silly beliefs.
Interestingly, according to a recent Harris poll http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=982
belief if ghosts is highest among persons who attend religious services less than once a year (56%), and lowest among people who either attend services at least once a week (38%) or never (39%).
As far as I know, credible evidence for the existence of ghosts is on par with that for the divinity of Jesus, so I can only conclude that, theist or atheist, we all have some kind of genetic compulsion to believe in sky fairies of one sort or another.
That’s the problem with getting old. Just when I think that my view of human nature cannot get any more pessimistic, I am proven wrong.
Oh well. Never mind. Happy Monkey to all.
Alex, I’m also a bit surprised by the results of this poll. I know that not all atheists are sketical about extraordinary claims, but somehow I got the impression that those who frequented this place would be more skeptical.
Regarding the article, I have trouble imagining how ghosts would even work in the natural world. Considering that our personality and memories are dependent on the structures in our brains, it’s hard to think that any aspect of ourselves can survive independently of those structures. I suppose, in principle, we could copy our personality and memories onto a replica brain, or find a way to format them as a very complex computer program; maybe in that sense ghosts could exist – that is, the individual exists outside their physical body – but that really stretches the traditional definition of “ghost”.
Also, Austin raised a point that I’ve often thought about. What exactly does it mean for something to be supernatural? If a phenomenon exists in nature, then it is natural, even if we don’t understand it. Gods, ghosts, and all other “supernatural” entities are claimed to interact with the natural world, so how can they be supernatural?
Super-natural means being above and beyond nature — not subject to natural laws, constraints, conditions, etc.
The ancient Greek gods were not supernatural because they were still part of the world and therefore subject to their own limits or constraints. They were a “higher” being than us, like we are higher than dogs or ants, but they did not exist independently of the natural world.
So if ghosts exist, the question is: do they exist independently of the natural, material universe around us or are they part of the universe — dependent in some way upon that universe, even if only constrained by laws/conditions we aren’t fully aware of?
I leave open the possibility that there is “ether” or “energy” or some such which might account for some ghosts, not requiring an afterlife to believe in it, just a sense of fun.
There’s not a ghost of a chance.
Rob Lundberg:
When Christians use “Merry Christmas” as a challenge – an “UP YOURS” dressed up politely – then it is not charitably or politely meant; it is indeed meant as a aggressive taunt. It is also used by you in this instance, and by all Christians using it in this way, as a “means test”, to find out if the person you are talking to is “one of us”, or someone you have been told, by religious authority figures, to hate.
So, the more Christians use “Merry Christmas” as a means test and an “up yours”, the more I will stop using it, and the more I will feel correct in assuming that Christians are fight-picking bigots, who hypocritically say one thing but mean another.
And ghosts? Give me a break people. Stop legitimising people’s ignorance by buying into it. This is not “harmless fun”, it’s harmful crap.
Ghosts? Personally, I no longer think so. After years of obsessing about ghosts and alien life (which i’m still unsure of), I never had any encounters and saw no promising evidence. So I don’t believe the hype!
>>Super-natural means being above and beyond nature — not subject to natural laws, constraints, conditions, etc.
Sorry – for some reason the rest of my comment was cut off for some reason. I was going to ask, how does one distinguish between “not subject to natural laws”, and “subject to laws that we do not understand”?
That’s not an easy question to answer, but perhaps we don’t always need to answer it.
If someone defines a ghost or a god as “supernatural,” then they are defining it as beyond above/beyond any natural laws/constraints. So, if such things exist and we discover laws/constraints on them, then the original definition is false.
So in effect, anyone who defines anything as “supernatural” is saying that it is, by definition, beyond any sort of scientific testing, prediction, and understanding. That’s a pretty massive assertion that would be difficult to support.
If ghosts existed they would be everywhere. There are at least 6 dead people for every living person on Earth today. With those kind of numbers, there would be a ghost just about everywhere you looked. When will people figure out that we are so easily fooled by our own brains. Our brains have to interpret the signals it gets from our senses. Somtimes it does a lot of embelishing, especially when the sense is limited in some way. Have you ever noticed that ghosts are always seen when the lighting is dim. When ghosts talk it’s always distorted and difficult to make out what they are saying.
Come on now, those who say they believe in ghosts are once again preparing for their time when they will die and it will all be over and so they must have something to cling on to that this would not be the end but the beginning.
It is just a business to make money to make people believe in ghosts and the afterlife.
Houdini said that if he could get in touch or come back as a ghost he would, but of course he never did.
I am really disappointed after seeing the results. I was/am proud of being an atheist. I thought majority of us are rational and intelligent people. So, I couldn’t believe it when I saw that 75% didn’t choose the option that “neither I nor anybody has seen any ghost’; which means that people still believe in some religious nonsense like ’souls’. Next what ‘heaven and hell’ too? I thought we are better than that.
Two true “ghost” stories:
1) When I was in high school 40+ years ago, we didn’t have ari conditioning, so sometimes my mother and I slept on cots on the side porch on hot summer nights. One night the neighbor kids, 3 boys about 8, 11 and 12, were camping out in a tent in their back yard which was below our property. Our porch had, instead of a railing, a solid waist-high brick wall, so they couldn’t see us from their low position. The 2 older boys, trying to scare the younger one, kept peaking out from under the tent and saying they saw a ghost. The youngest boy was afraid and decided to go back into the house.My mom was pretty straight-laced but sometimes had a silly streak and had a keen sense of justice. She went in the house and found an old sheet and my dad’s tire chains. Wearing the sheet, I went out the front door and down the driveway between the two properties dragging the chains on the asphalt drive.
When the 2 older boys heard the noise, they looked out the tent flaps. Those kids screamed while running wildly back to their house.
If, by chance, they answered your survey, they are among those convinced they saw a ghost —-but it was just me.
2) About 20 years ago, I used to attend an annual weekend gathering of a Mensa group that took place at the riverside cabin of one of our members. One of the traditions of the gathering was to hike to an abandoned cemetery at midnight on Saturday and sit on the old tombstones telling ghost stories. Unless there was a full moon, the area was extremely dark because of tree cover and lack of nearby electric lights. Sometimes it was rather foggy, too.
One night we were all listening to the stories, joking, and laughing, when the person next to me grabbed my arm and pointed to the opposite end of the cemetery where there seemed to be a ghostlike presence. Soon, the speaker stopped his story and almost everyone was looking and trying to decide if it were indeed a ghost. In no way do I believe in ghosts, but it was a rather creepy apparition in the dark, the fog, at midnight, in a graveyard.
When we all got very quiet, a voice from that direction asked if we were finished with our stories and ready to head back to the cabin.
As it turned out, two of the group had separated from the rest of us and were carrying on a conversation of their own quite a distance from us. One guy always talked animatedly making broad gestures with his arms. He had on a fluorescent yellow sweatshirt which seemed to be the only thing that reflected any light there. From a distance, in the dark and fog, when he gestured with his arms, he seemed to be a moving ghostly blur.
These are good examples of how someone might think they saw a ghost when there was a perfectly natural explanation.
I haven’t seen a “ghost” since.
Dose God have to exist in order to have life after death? After all, as an atheist I believe that life exist without God. So why do we need a God in an afterlife? I wonder how many of you nawsayers believe in little green men and such. After all it is probable that life dose exist else where. However the nearest star ( btw probable dosen’t have life on it ) is so far away it would take us over 40,000 years to get there. And after all, science says you can’t destroy energy. We are energy, so like it or not that makes us immortal. It’s just a question as to whether we are capable of thought in our next existance.
Strictly speaking, no.
But of course, the existence of life after death has as much evidence and logic supporting it as does the existence of gods.
It seems likely that life exists in more places than just this one planet in the entire universe.
However, there is evidence for the existence of life at all, which makes the existence of life in more than one place an easy and reasonable supposition. The lack of evidence for an afterlife anywhere at all means that you can’t use the analogy you’re trying to use here.
You are equivocating on the definition of “we” here.
Who “we” are is based on our memories and personality. Destroy either, like through brain trauma and injury, and you destroy the original person who was there.
When our physical bodies do, so do our brains. Since our memories and personalities are dependent on our physical brains, these are also destroyed. Therefore, what makes us “us” will be destroyed, even if the original components continue on in other forms.
Arguing that because the energy and atoms which make up my body are immortal, that therefore “I” am immortal, further commits the Fallacy of Composition: not everything that is true of every part of a thing is necessarily true of the whole. All the atoms in my body are invisible, so does that make me invisible? Of course not — but that’s the same argument you’re trying to offer.
Since thought is dependent upon our physical brains, there’s really no question there at all. You might as well ask if we are capable of digestion or respiration after death.
So you do agree that if life after death exist, then God does not have to exist.
In general I agree with you that life may exist in more places then just our planet ( even though we have no proof of it yet any more then if ghost exist or God for that matter) its just that I have a problem with if life has visit us from another planet. Anyone that has the capabilities to travel such a great distance would not have to cloak themselves from us.
As for equivocating Austin, then what are we?
Also for your statment ” all the atoms in my body are invisible, so does that make me invisible. What are you two or so. Can you deny that we are made of atoms ( btw have you ever heard of atomic energy? ) and who knows, maybe in your next life you may be invisiable ( could be why we can’t see ghost, you may be on to something there. ).
And no though is not dependent upon our physical brains. Working in the Dept. of Mental Health I saw many persons who would never be who they were ( due to a tragedy of some sorts ) but they were still were considered to be among the living.
But who said that a ghost has got to think or know what they are doing.
What happens after death I don’t know. But one thing for sure Austin you don’t know either, you can only speculate.
I’ve never suggested otherwise.
It’s highly implausible. I don’t know any atheists who think it is very likely or at least likely enough to take seriously.
I thought I made that perfectly clear: what makes us individual persons (as opposed to merely homo sapiens) is the combination of our memories and personalities.
Personal insults are no substitute for serious, substantive arguments. If you don’t have the latter to offer, you won’t obscure that through engaging in the former.
You don’t seem to understand that what you quoted is a standard example of the Fallacy of Composition.
Of course not and that’s not what my example did. The Fallacy of Composition occurs when one tries to argue that whatever is true of the parts is necessarily true of the whole. This is the fallacy your are committing when you try to argue that “we” are immortal because the atoms or energy that makes us up is immortal. The fallacy is easier to see when we substitute some other characteristic of atoms for “immortal,” like “invisible.”
You’re committing the Fallacy of Composition
Since who I am will cease to exist when my physical brain dies, there will be no “next life” for me. Or for you.
Yes, it absolutely is. All the evidence ever collected proves conclusively that memories and personality are wholly dependent on the physical brain.
And how, exactly, do you imagine this supports your position?
If there is a “ghost” but it doesn’t have your memories or personality, then it isn’t “you.”
I know for sure what happens after death: the rest of the world goes on and you aren’t in it anymore because everything that made you who “you” are will cease to exist.
I had a question about atoms being invisible. Although the human eye cannot see them, they are still visible with the help of what’s called a scanning tunneling microscope.
Invisible is defined as “not visible; that cannot be seen.”
Should the definition read “not visible to the naked human eye?” If so, whether or not something is invisible would be dependent on whether or not a human eye can see it. This doesn’t seem very scientific to me, to be dependent on whether or not a human eye can see it.
This would bring up the question of what matter is truly “invisible,” if any.
Sorry if this is a bit off topic. Occasionally the term invisible comes up in theistic debates and I was just interested in some other thoughts about it.
That’s what’s usually meant when we say that some physical object is invisible.
I’m afraid I have no idea what you’re talking about or what its relevance is.
Sorry if I’m not being real clear on this, Austin.
My thought was this: I don’t think that atoms are invisible, because they can be seen with a microscope. If someone claims that atoms are invisible because they can’t be seen with the human eye, then they must also agree that a tiny metal sliver is invisible, because the doctor may have to use a magnifying glass or something similar in order to see it. Tell the doc that it’s invisible, and he’ll probably think you’re a loon. Tell him you can’t see it, and he’ll probably agree.
I guess I was just trying to clear up the misconception that something is invisible just beause it can’t be seen with the naked eye. This would also make many stars invisible. I don’t think any matter is invisible, unless someone can provide me with an example.
It’s all dependent on the definition I guess.
Fire away with the last word if you want. I probably sound like I’m babbling about a rather moot subject! Thanks.
And so I have to go back to the first thing I said to you: “not visible to the (naked) eye” is one of the ways in which the word “invisible” is used. That’s not the strictest definition, but it is a common one. The most technically correct phrase “not visible to the naked eye” is simply too much longer and unwieldy in comparison to simply saying “it’s invisible.”
Remember, “in-visible” means at it’s root simply “not visible.” So anything you can’t see might be described as “not visible” or “in-visible.” Even something that is merely hidden from view can legitimately be described as “invisible,” even though it might be visible if you’re standing in a different spot or if you remove the concealment. It doesn’t have to be impossible to see.
It’s not a misconception; it’s just the colloquial use of the word.
Ghosts are creatures of the imagination. That is where they exist.
I do not believe in ghosts for two reasons. I see no evidence that anything remains of human beings after death. My opinion is that we go into total oblivion. The second is that there are so few ghosts. Ghosts are supposed to be troubled souls. If so why aren’t ghosts prevalent at sites of massacres such as wartime death camps and other sites of massacres and mass accident deaths.
However people do misinterpret what they see and have hallucinations in times of extreme emotional stress.
In my former life. i.e. the one I had in my earlier years, I spent a long time at sea.
On one ship a sighting of a ghost in yellow oil skins was regularly noted.(This in the Indian Ocean in the tropics)The Bosun, a commonsense bloke realised it was at a particular time and duly appeared armed with a batten of wood and promptly floored the poor old Chief Engineer who had gone “Troppo”
On another occasion a ghost had appeared on the foc’sle. I had said if he appeared whilst I was on lookout he’d be wearing my knife. It never appeared on my watch. A ridiculous prank which could easily have
led to the lookout jumping over the side in fright.
Merry Santa Claus to y’all
Actually Garry has a point, and all you are trying to do is manufacture a new meaning to invisible. You can do better then that and that is why I came down on you for making such a statement in the first place. You are smarter then that. The word invisible means incapable of being seen, not too small to be seen. You are compairing apples to oranges. Plus the fact that we are made up of millions of atoms and not just one makes your statement even more ridiculous. After all, it is a proven fact that if an item is made up of millions of atoms it is not invisible to the naked eye anymore as the atoms were never invisible in the first place.
And no where did I ever stated that a ghost is an identity, or is a being capable of thought. I just thrown in the twist ” Does God have to exist in order to have life after death? “.
Not too long ago I suffered a stroke and lost a good part of my memorie and yes my personality has change somewhat, so according to you I don’t exist anymore? Sorry I do.
You are just as closed minded as many of my Christian friends are.
For one, you think in order for a ghost to exist it must be capable of thought. Not necessarly, it could just be trapped energy. You see I’m speaking of ghost not spirits. A spirit has a sole a ghost does not have too. So are we speaking of ghost or spirits?
Sorry, but you are no more open to possibility then a Baptist preacher. Or you are one and the same.
Yes I don’t believe in God, but I am not that pompous to declare I know what happens when one dies.
I am glad to know that both you and preacher Dan knows.
Let’s look at the dictionary, shall we?
And:
How’s that?
I don’t think you’re familiar with standard explanations of the Fallacy of Composition.
You do exist, but the “you” is now different than the person who existed before.
Feel free to support that accusation.
Perhaps you should look up the definition of “ghost” too and see if such a characteristic is reasonable to assume.
It’s not “pompous” to state the facts, even if those facts conflict with someone’s favorite fables.
As Gary stated, atoms can be seen with the help of an aid ( such as the scanning tunneling microscope ). therefore they are not “invisible” to the eye, they are seen and not interpret ( such as radio waves ). But if you wish to get technical, just look at the screen you are reading this from. It is made up of many tiny dots called pixels. So according to you, we shouldn’t be reading this at all.
Now let’s look at the ” Fallacy of comosition “.
(1) An atom is not invisible for it can be seen with an aid ( no different then useing specs to read with ).
(2) Because they are not invisible, they are not impossible to see.
(3) The Wikipedia discribes your example:
Atoms are not visible to the naked eye
Humans are made up of atoms
Therefore, humans are not visible to the naked eye
as a ” fallacy of Composition “.
Mine would be described as a ” Fallacy of division ” wich makes mine more plausible then yours.
How’s that?
Every time we learn somthing “you” are a different person then who existed before. What is your point? Btw, sorry same person, same name, same children, same hair color, eye color.
Now onto the subject of ghost, yes they can be spirits, but they can also be apparitions or semblance or for that matter a double apperance on a tv screen. The latter three are not necessarily spirits. So a ghost could be one or the other. But until there is proof that someone came back from the dead ( as a ghost ), I will discount them as UTA’S ( Unidentified Terrestrial Apperitions ) or UTO’S ( Unidentified Tressestrial Obects ). So are you speaking of ghostly spirits or ghostly semblance or both?
Yes, I agree it is not “pompous” to state fact, but it is “pompous” to state your opinion as fact. For one Austin, you have no more proof of what happens after death then Preacher Dan does. All you are presenting is an assume observance, not a scientific fact.
So yes , you are “pomous”.
i didn’t answer the survey as none of the answers accurately reflected my opinion.
what definition of “ghost” are we using?
is my dead grandma bouncing around and scaring people (like she horrifically scared people when she was alive)? i doubt that.
is there a metaphysical explanation involving energy? perhaps. are people being tricked by stress, trauma etc? i would say definitely (to at the very least some of the sightings).
there is no clear cut answer. we know so very little about different dimensions (not in a cheesy sci-fi movie way) and quantum physics that it’s hard to have a clear cut opinion on the topic.
though, again, it depends entirely on what a person believes the term “ghost” means.
Are you still trying to deny that the definition of “invisible” applies to them?
How’s what? I can’t make sense of what you wrote. Are you trying to say that you committed the Fallacy of Division rather than the Fallacy of Composition?
Just so there’s no confusion: arguing that energy is eternal, therefore humans which are made up of energy are eternal, is the Fallacy of Composition.
Such changes are minor and therefore lead to minor differences. The complete loss of one’s personality and memory, however, represents a complete loss of what makes a person who they are.
So, you’re denying that what makes you “you” are your memories and personality?
I don’t reject the presence of a “double appearance” on screens. I reject other ghosts.
True, but what I wrote isn’t any more my personal opinion than when I quoted the dictionary. Who you are as an individual is not based on your name, eye color, height, or any such things it’s based on your personality and memories. When they are gone, who “you” are is gone. There is no more “you.” That’s it. Since memories and personality are wholly dependent on the physical brain, the death of the brain is the death of “you” (absent something unusual, like uploading oneself to a computer).
This is no more my “opinion” than noting that the absence of combustible substances entails an absence of combustion, or noting that the age of the Earth is demonstrably more then 6,000 years.
Of course I do. The proof of the material basis of personality and memory litters the scientific and medical literature. It’s every bit a scientific fact as the material basis of digestion or combustion.
Correction: I am familiar with the scientific and medical facts, so therefore do not accept fables or myths which purport to offer non-material explanations for memory, personality, morality, and selfhood.
No, what I am saying is that atoms are not invisible.
Yes my statement that we are energy so now we are imortal may be more accurate to say it is “fallacy of division” then ” Fallacy of Composition”. Here is an example:
A Boeing 747 can fly unaided across the ocean
A Boeing 747 has jet engines
One of it’s jet engine can fly unadied across the ocean
If noted, all examples in the fallacy of division has truth in it. But to claim because you can’t see atoms that you now should be invisible is a fales claim. that is “Fallacy of Composition”.
So when I wrote ” we are energy, so like it or not that makes us imortal “is a true statement. I also wrote however ” It’s just a question as to whether we are capable of thought in our next existance “. Didn’t say our energy would be just like us, however I must admitt that I didn’t say it wouldn’t.
So please allow me to tie this together. You wrote ” Destroy either, like through brain trauma and injury and you destroy the original person who was there “.
You are correct to a point, but you forgot one thing. There would still be a person there. So now what, do we still wish that person a happy birthday on the day they were born or now wish them a happy birthday on the day they had brain truma? Also should we now change their name, after all they are not the same person now are they. As in my case, now that you said that I am not the same person anymore then why do I have to pay some other person debt off? The trouble is, their is still something left behind and always will be. Doesn’t matter if you burn things up, blow them up or eat them, there will always be something left behind.
Another thing that you don’t take into consideration is; are we just mechanical beings or do we have a soul? If we have a soul, then we have a twist if not then you are right. Now can you prove that we don’t have a soul?
That is your “Fallacy of Composition”.
Also just because one may be harmed in life does not mean that at the end of life all memory is gone. Poor ole Hawkens got into a bit of a problem when he said that the memory that enters a Black Hole would be destroyed. In science, memory can’t be destroyed. So Hawens recanted and said that it would slip into another dimension.
As for your proof, science is not clear on the subject and contrdicts one another. So yes you are just stating an opinion, not a fact.
Btw, even Tamar asked what definition of ghost you are useing, maybe you should try to be more clear of what you are asking in the future.
So you’re simply denying standard dictionary definitions of the term. Any particular reason?
They are both essentially the same fallacy; which label applies depends on which direction you are arguing. Composition is when you argue that what is true of the parts is true of the whole; division is when you argue that what is true of the whole is true of the parts.
What you wrote in comment #20 is an example of the Fallacy of the Composition: “science says you can’t destroy energy. We are energy, so like it or not that makes us immortal.”
You assume in this that who “we” are — what makes us individuals as opposed to someone or something else — persists on some level. Now, who “we” are as individual human beings is defined by our thoughts and experiences. So, if “we” as unique individual human beings survive death, then necessarily our thoughts and experiences must survive as part of a coherent whole.
And that’s not going to happen.
Only if there are new memories and a new personality taking their place.
If you destroy them without replacing them, then you have no person there anymore.
Yes, but what is left behind will not be that which makes us the individual human beings we are right now. I can cut off my finger and put that in cold storage, but “I” am not in cold storage.
Under traditional conceptions of “soul” — a supernatural, nonmaterial entity responsible for our thoughts, beliefs, morals, etc. — the answer is unequivocally “no soul.”
Under the above definition, that’s already been done because everything traditionally attributed to souls has been unequivocally attributed to the physical brain. Any “soul” that can be salvaged from that is a meaningless concept with no role to play in any model of our universe.
Feel free to point to science being contradictory on the brain’s responsibility for memory and personality.
I don’t think you can.
Can you show me in the dictionary were it says that atoms are invisible? Although they may seem invisibile to the unaided eye in atuality they are not. But according to most dictionarys that I looked up the main meaning is incapable of being seen. So if you are capable of seeing an atom with an aid, then it is not invisible. All other meanings are more on the realm of being metaphoric. But if you wish to go metaphoric, then you must admit that both England and it’s people are invisible because we can’t see them from our eastern coast. Now that would be an example “Fallacy of composition”.
But back to my statement on energy. If you notice, I said may. Not was.
Can you give me an example of anyone who is not made up from energy?
Are you able to destroy energy?
If you can’t, then what I wrote is true. If energy can’t be destroyed and goes on for ever then energy has it’s own immortality. And if the energy is linked to us then it is our energy that goes on forever.
It’s just a statement no need to go nuts on it, Preacher Dan does the same thing when ever we discuss what happens in death. The truth is I am more incline to agree with you then Dan, but I don’t close the book all the way like you do as you have closed every option for discovery.
So the argument here, should not be whether atoms are invisible or not, but what meaning if any we get from our enery after death.
Do we become ghost with our old memories, or does energy goes thru a metamorphosis ( like that of a butterfly ) and becomes a ghost that is a new identity? Or does it just drift off into space?
More then likely, it just drifts off into space. This a shame for if this is what it does, then life really is meaningless. I know that one can argue that life has meaning to the living, but so what. Sooner or later the Sun will get old and engulf our earth and it’s history so everything that is relative becomes unrelative. Which btw makes the Autins Atheism blog meaningless.
If you can, look up the meaning of person. Funny, it states divine being. I guess you can’t always go by what the dictionarys says can you? Also you are wrong about the soul being unequivacally attributed to the brain, the majority of persons believe it comes from the heart.
Anyway, will be gone for the next two days due to New Years. I do wish you a good year to come.
I showed you dictionary definitions that can apply to atoms. If a mountain top or air can be labeled “invisible,” there’s no way you’ll argue that atoms can’t.
And, no, it’s not simply a “metaphorical” definition here because the primary definitions are “not visible” and “not perceptible by the eye.”
Here’s your statement: “science says you can’t destroy energy. We are energy, so like it or not that makes us immortal.”
I don’t see “may” there, but that doesn’t matter because “may” wouldn’t eliminate the logical fallacy.
No, what you wrote is false and I explained why. The energy that makes us up may be “immortal” (but only in a metaphorical sense because the labels “mortal” and “immortal” don’t apply to that which is not alive — and energy is not alive) but that doesn’t mean we as individual human beings are immortal.
All Dan has is a Bible, a text of no more validity than any other collection of ancient texts. I have verified, reliable, proven science. I’d say that there is a difference between the two. The dependence of memories and personality on the physical brain is a reliable and proven a scientific fact as the evolution of species. Denying that our physical death means the end of all that makes us how we are as persons is as reasonable and rational as denying that our species evolved naturally over the course of millennia — just like all other life.
That’s as bad as saying that “we” are immortal if our energy is immortal. Your statement presumes that “meaning” can only exist if one’s existence as an individual is eternal, but there is no basis whatsoever for such a belief.
I suppose it is meaningless to you if you are incapable of developing meaning in your life absence an eternal existence, but I’d say that’s just your own poverty of imagination.
Funny, not in my dictionary.
Maybe you just need a better dictionary, because that’s twice now that yours has failed you.
I never claimed that the soul is “attributed” to the brain. I never said anything remotely like that.
Maybe your dictionary is fine by you’re not reading it correctly?
Ok Austin, if atoms are invisible and we are made from atoms, then why are we not invisible too?
Now do you only own one dictionary? And is your dictionary just as arrogant as you. After all, to write a statment that it was my dictionary that failed me but yours was right sounds a bit arrogant to me. Maybe you are just incapable of reading one right.
But if you can read more then one dictionary you may see the meaning ” will last “. Also inscience it is not too unusual to compair how long things last by giving it life. Such as the life of a star or the universe.
Now don’t knock Preacher Dan, you and him are about the same. You both cite the same thing, that is you both think that only you are right. But if you were to look up the history of science, just like the Bible you would see that both have been wrong in the past and both will be wrong in the future.
Also you did write; Under the definition, that’s already been done because everything traditionally attributed to souls has been unequocally attributed to the physical brain.
And for the basis of meaning you need life, after all if all mermory is gone then meaning has know meaning. Let’s face it, one day our own Sun will engulf our earth and detroy all life, history and meaning. So everything we do today, will mean nothing tomorrow. But I’m not going to burst your bubble, if you wish to believe that your life has meaning, then go for it.
Fallacy of Composition.
I own several. I quoted two different dictionaries earlier.
Thus far, you haven’t demonstrated that he relies on anything as sound as science.
And you can’t tell the difference between that and “the soul being unequivacally attributed to the brain”?
So how does this support the nonsense about there not being any meaning without eternal life?
True. Now, did you notice that you just admitted that there is meaning?
Maybe all your actions will be meaningless for you and others tomorrow, but don’t presume the same for others.
In fact, meaning exists exactly insofar as we believe it does. Meaning isn’t something that can be imposed from outside us nor is it something that can exist as a quality independent of us. Meaning exists as a relationship between us and that which we value. So long as anything has any value to you, it has meaning for you. When you say that nothing has meaning for you, you are saying that you value nothing.
Which raises the question of why you keep making the same logical fallacies over and over, since you admit that it all has no meaning or value for you.
Austin your full of it. For one, you won’t answer why we are not invisible. Instead you try to use “Fallacy of Composition”. The fallacy is; Atoms are not invisible. That is why you, I, or anyone else are not invisible. But go ahead and think that they are.
As for meaning, it more then likely will be only for a short time and then all will be gone. Do you remember anyone who was born 15,000 years ago? If you can you are one of the few. As I stated, sometime in the future the Sun will engulf the earth. When it does there will be know more life, no more memories, no history just nothing. When you die, you won’t remember a thing. Like it never happen.
Let’s look at you and Preacher Dan. The Bible has many things in it that has happen in the past, science has proven this. But it also has many things that has not been proven either. Although I tend to believe science more then the Bible, science has a long history of recanting, or making up things to explain why things work. Let’s use Archaeology as an example. A good part of it is made up, for one we don’t know who the ice man was, so we just made up that he was important. We also change dates all the time, due to carbon dating. It seems, that just when you thing you have an answer in science somthing else comes along to proves it wrong. Why we can’t even decide if dinosaurs had feathers and were more like birds or if they reptilian. Much less what wiped them out. I know many people in the scientific field and most them have told me one time or another, never discount anything. Also you may be surpise as to how many believe in some sort of a supreme being.
No, you and Dan are the same.
The question commits the Fallacy of Composition, so there is no legitimate question there to answer. This fallacy, in case you’ve forgotten, involves thinking or concluding that whatever is true of the parts of some object must also be true of the whole object. In this case, what is true of the parts of a person — atoms — cannot be assumed to be true of the whole as well.
Only if you ignore standard definitions of the term “invisible.” I’ve provided multiple examples of where it’s legitimate or even common to use the term without it meaning “impossible to see” and it’s noteworthy that you’ve ignored them all.
The meaning you personally find in something will, at most, last for as long as you do. After that, meaning will have to be found in things by other people. Is that a problem? It certainly isn’t a reason to claim that meaning does not exist, which I must point out is what you claimed.
Let me quote you, in case you forgot: “This a shame for if this is what it does, then life really is meaningless.” You didn’t claim that meaning is transitory or temporary; no, you claimed that if our memories really do disappear when we die, then our lives are meaningless. No meaning at all. You have yet to explain how or why that conclusion follows from the premises, though, and I stand by my position that this conclusion is nonsense, lacking in any basis or reason.
It is true that the results of science are imperfect, but this doesn’t change the fact that the results and conclusions of science are far superior to the Bible. This is why we can be as certain about memory and personality being dependent on the physical brain as we are about the evolution of species and the age of the earth. So, it’s no more “pompous” to state that the death of the brain is the end of you as a person than it is to state that we homo sapiens evolved over millions of years from other species of animals. Just because both of these facts conflict with popular, comforting myths doesn’t make them any less factual.
Funny, but I only see creationists making claims like this. I don’t suppose you’d care to explain and support them?
No. sorry. The fallacy is; Atoms are not invisible.
Dosen’t matter which way you look at it. You see it wouldn’t be a fallacy if they were invisible for then people would be invisible.
If you were to say that some sea life of the deep sea were transparent because thier atoms seem transparent there would be no fallacy.
Sorry but to pass off meaning to other people who won’t exist in time is a fallacy in it self. You don’t seem to understand, in the future there will be no more people on earth due to the sun. No more people to pass on meaning, no more meaning. So everything in time becomes meaningless, unless you are otherwise suggesting that nature has somthing to do with it.
As for carbon data, one only needs to look at the Shroud of Turin. Carbon data showed the Shroud to be around 700 years old, so according to carbon data the Shroud can not be the cloth they covered Christ with. The problem is, because the cloth was also burned about 700 years ago you can’t get an accurate reading with carbon data. So the debate goes on.
When it comes to Archaeology, a lot of it is made up. For example, for a long time Archaeologist believed the Pyramids were built by slaves. Now many Archaeologist beleive they were built by it’s citizens.
My point is, both the Bible and Science have been wrong in the past. So both can be wrong with what happens after death. This is were I differ from you and Preacher Dan, I keep my mind open to possibilities. You and him are closed to only what you believe and nothing else. That is why I asked, if we have life after death, dose God have to exist too?
You see I have no reason to believe in God, but that does not rule out life after death. Just the fact we have life, gives life after death a chance.
1. Even if you were right about this, that wouldn’t be a fallacy. It would simply be a factual error. Do you comprehend the difference between factual errors and logical fallacies?
2. You would only be right if we ignored standard dictionary definitions. The dictionaries are quite clear that “invisible” is a label that applies to more than just that which is impossible to see; instead, it can also applied to that which merely cannot be seen with the unaided eye. It depends on circumstances. I’ve given you examples of the word being used in various ways and you are deliberately ignoring them.
3. The fallacy lies in the implicit argument that if atoms were invisible, we would be invisible. That’s an illegitimate argument.
I think you still don’t understand what the Fallacy of Composition is. Not every characteristic of the parts of a whole is also true of the whole itself. Only particular types of characteristics can transfer. Do you know what those characteristics are and how they differ from the characteristics which don’t transfer?
I didn’t “pass off meaning to other people who won’t exist.”
I know that this will eventually be the case. It doesn’t negatively impact anything I wrote.
That is true. However, a future absence of meaning does not entail a present absence of meaning. Since it is your position that everything is meaningless now, you are not helping your case by repeating over and over the idea that there will not be any meaning at some unknown point in the future.
Once again, I find that I’m forced to remind you that your original position was that life is meaningless — present tense, not future tense.
Sorry, but this case doesn’t support your claim that “dates change all the time” due to carbon dating.
So, changing a conclusion based on new evidence — which is how science always operates — is in your opinion an example of “making things up”?
Your point is irrelevant. What’s critical is how reliable a particular system is. Science is far more reliable than the Bible. The conclusion that memories and personality are dependent upon the physical brain is as reliable as the conclusion that our species evolved. So, if you’re going to dismiss the former based upon the imperfection of science then you’ll have to do the same with the latter.
And only creationists make such an argument.
What this means is that when you say that it’s pompous to dismiss the possibility of personal survival of physical death because science is sometimes wrong and “makes things up,” you’re making the same argument as creationists who say that it’s pompous to dismiss the possibility of special creation because science is sometimes wrong and “makes things up.” That’s fitting because both have the same origins in ancient superstition and both are equally contradicted by modern science.
Do you keep your mind open to the possibility that the Earth is only 6,000 years old? That’s just as reasonable as the possibility of life after death.
Not every “possibility” is worth being open to. Some ideas are just utter nonsense. Keeping your mind “open” is not an inherent virtue if you have no reliable standards for separating the wheat from the chaff.
The survival of the self after death is chaff, no more and no less. It’s as valid a belief as thinking that humans didn’t evolve, that the Earth is young, or that disease is caused by demons. If you’re going to be “open” to the possibility of an afterlife, you might as well be “open” to the possibility of elves, fairies, and Bigfoot. It’s not pompous to dismiss those ideas because solid, reliable science has provided plenty of information on the truth about such matters. I’m sure you don’t dismiss all of science merely because science isn’t perfect, so your reason for dismissing one rather than another must be based on something else entirely.
Could it be that you have some personal stake in the idea of a life after death which you don’t have in the idea of a young Earth?
The definition of Fallacy ( according to the Randome House College Dic. )is; deceptive, misleading or false notion.
So let’s look at the definitons that you provided.
1. not visible, not preceptible by the eye.
For one, Atoms are preceptible by the eye with an aide, so that rules out “not visible”.
You other dectionary says;
1. impossible to see, not visible
Well once again, with an aide to the eye they are not impossible to see, therefore they are visible.
So the onlything you have left is; hidden or out of sight.
So if you were to hide a person with other people, does that make that person invisible?
This is were the fallacy is, you are using out of sight or hidden as a false notion with intent to decieve and mislead.
My statement on the other hand is not a fallacy. After all, science says you can’t destroy energy ( now you are not disagreeing with science are you Austin? ). So if you can’t destroy energy, then it must go on forever. If you wish I can change my statement to our energy goes on forever. Which is the same thing. It is a true statement and nothen more. You are the one who has been giving it more meaning.
So the argument should be, what becomes of it.
As for meaning, I still stand by my words. You are mistaken false meaning for true meaning. Example; A man goes to Vegas. The first day he won $10,000.00, but the next day he lost his home, car and everything he owns. Does him winning $10,000.00 the first day mean anything?
So if everything that mankind has done in the past becomes meaningless in the future, then everything we do today becomes meaningless.
And yes carbon dating has it’s flaws. Just google it on the net. It is because of this, dates do change in history.
Also do you think Archaeologist would of found new evidence if they were as close minded as you. I think not, for one they would of never been looking for new evidence and accepted that the Pyarmids were built by slaves. They never would of question it.
If you remember, it wasn’t too long ago when the church said what science could believe. They were just as closed minded as you, so the rub is; You and Preacher Dan are the same. You both assume that you are right so there is no need to question if you are right.
But come on, to compare the earth being 6,000 years old to life after death? You’re reaching. For one, science has some physical proof to the age of the earth. But all they have is assume proof of what happens to you after death. Don’t get me wrong, it is good assumtion proof, but still not absolute.
Now can you tell me how old the earth is? You see I do question science, it seems unlikely that mankind lived for a million years or so,without doing much. Then for some reason or another in the last 6,000 years they started to build great civilizations.
In this context, a fallacy is an error in reasoning in an argument. That’s what makes the Fallacy of Composition a fallacy.
Doing so honestly and sincerely requires looking at everything I provided, not cherry picking the bits you like and leaving out the ones you don’t like.
You left out the example: invisible fluid. Unless you think there is such a thing as fluid that is imperceptible to the eye under any circumstances, it seems clear that this definition allows for something to be invisible even if perceptible under certain circumstances — like magnification, more light, etc.
Once again, you leave out the example: air.
Also: not easily noticed or detected, not accessible to view.
Invisible in a crowd? That goes with “the poor are politically invisible” and “invisible seam.”
No, I’m using the word as the dictionary defines it. There’s no question but that “invisible” is a word that can be used to refer to objects that cannot be seen or are not easily detected at the moment, but which might be seen or easily detected under other circumstances.
English isn’t your first language, is it?
Feel free to show how it differs from the Fallacy of Composition.
Do you even comprehend what the Fallacy of Composition and why it is a logical fallacy?
It might. It depends on the person. Maybe he didn’t like his home, car, and the rest of his life. Maybe the chance for a new, fresh start is the best thing that ever happened to him.
I’m still waiting for you to support your original assertion: everything is meaningless, in the present tense.
Feel free to explain what flaws it has are relevant to your claims.
You have yet to establihsh that it “closed minded” to not take your favored superstitions seriously.
So, it’s closed minded to insist that it’s right that the earth is round and that there’s no reason to take seriously people who think it’s flat?
Feel free to show how insisting on the former is more reasonable and less closed minded than the latter.
We have proof that memories and personality are dependent on the physical brain.
So, are you saying that it’s reasonable to think that earth and humanity have only existed for around 6,000 years?
At one time or the other some people could have encountered “ghosts” as they claim these so called supernatural and forever wondering beings exist. But the problem I have is the confirmation of the existence of ghosts. I want to belive some people who claim to have seen the ghosts of their loved ones just had to battle with the reality of the lose of these people and so some could “ghost encounters” could be as a result of hallucinations and a mental recapitulation of the person’s past still lingering on in the hearts of those living on earth. But if people believe ghosts do exist all well and good cos we all have our own reserves and what we claim to be true.
How my statement differs from “Fallacy of Composition” is it is a factual statement. You have yet to explian why it isn’t.
As for the definitions you provided, people can read what you wrote. The fallacy is Atoms are not invisible, science proved it. So if you wish to go by a definition that was writen 50 years or so before science was able to see atoms then be my guest. But like people who belive in God who am I to tell you not to believe that atoms are invisible. Austin if you wish to believe they are, then it’s ok, go a head. It’s not like I want to see you holding your breath till your face turns blue. You win on it, have a cookie or a cupcake. You are tiresome.
Also if you wish to believe your existance has meaning, then by all means do. That way you can have your cake and eat it too. Even tho, sometime in the future it won’t mean a thing.
And I would of thought that with your great undersanding of English, you could of read that I said look up Carbon Dating on the net, it has many examples how it can be flawed. Sorry if you are too lazy to look it up. Maybe it’s in your dictionary.
As for your proof that memories and personality are dependent on the physical brain, I’ve worked in the Dept of Mental Health for over 20 years. No one really knows. It is an assumtion. Can you show were science can prove were our energy goes after death? Can you prove that there is no other conduit that our energy seaks after death?
You asked a question: “if atoms are invisible and we are made from atoms, then why are we not invisible too?”
This hypothetical rests upon an implicit argument: If atoms are invisible and we are made from atoms, then we are invisible.”
This commits the Fallacy of Composition because it attempts to infer that something is true about a whole if it is also true about the parts of the whole.
If you think that your inference/conclusion (”we are/should be invisible”) is not committing the Fallacy of Composition, then please explain why.
1. A fallacy in this context is an error in reasoning, not a factual error.
2. Several of the definitions provided cover describing as invisible that which might be visible under other circumstances and thus do not require that the object described as invisible is always and inherently impossible to see.
The definitions apply today to objects that can be quite visible to even the unaided eye, like mountains, people, an seams.
Since meaning is dependent upon one’s values, then something like has meaning precisely if, when, and because one believes it to have meaning.
I’m still waiting for you to defend your claim that nothing has meaning, here and now.
I thought you would be able to point out the specific problems which you think support your position. Shouldn’t be that hard, should it?
And how much neuroscience have you learned in that time?
No, it’s a conclusion based on decades of research and hard evidence.
Since the energy that makes up our physical bodies is not “us” — is not what makes us individual persons — where it goes is irrelevant. We as individual persons will cease to exist.
Seeking a conduit implies consciousness and intent. So, can you establish that the energy which makes up our bodies has consciousness and intent independent of our physical brains?
Oh, and I’m still eager to see you explain how it’s reasonable to insist that the earth is more than 6,000 years old but arrogant to insist that our lives and individual human beings ceases when our physical brains die.