Some of the Atheists Who Mock Christians Believe in Ghosts

[rug]

October 24, 2014
Posted by Jack Vance at 5:14 AM

I have encountered quite a few Christians during the course of my life who report that they believe in angels. This isn't exactly a shocker, is it? The existence of angels is part of mainstream Christian dogma. Even Pope Francis recently weighed in on the subject of angels, reaffirming his belief in their existence.

Many atheists are fond of mocking Christians for their belief in angels, and I can't say I blame them. The existence of angels seems every bit as absurd as the existence of gods. But there's at least one problem with mocking Christians for believing in angels: some of the atheists doing this share another silly belief with the Christians they are mocking: ghosts.

An atheist is someone who does not believe in gods, and this leaves atheists free to believe in all sorts of other supernatural nonsense, including souls, ghosts, haunted houses, and other things we tend to hear about during the month of October. I suspect that the majority of atheists do not believe in these things, but some certainly do. There is nothing inherent in atheism that precludes such beliefs.

What I find interesting is that when one asks ghost-believing atheists why they are mocking Christians for believing in angels, the reasons they provide are often the same ones given by those of us who find belief in any supernatural entities ridiculous. It is almost as if they have a blind spot of sorts when it comes to the particular supernatural beings in which they believe. Angels are silly; ghosts are real. Of course there are no gods, but spirits somehow survive the death of the brain and linger as some sort of intelligent energy fields.

http://www.atheistrev.com/2014/10/some-of-atheists-who-mock-christians.html#ixzz3HNQU84Yu

[xfundy]

1. Hypocracy spreads itself around.

There are dumb atheists, too.

[immoderate]

2. Yeh. Christians have no monopoly on stupidity.

I bet there are atheists that believe in homeopathy too. So?

--imm

[Dorian Gray]

61. Ugh

anybody who believes in homeopathy.... just ugh.

[Kalidurga]

3. Do they worship them?

Claim they created the universes and everything in them? Try to make laws based on this belief? If so then they have a religion and it's just as illogical as most.

[Cartoonist]

4. False equivalency

I don't believe in ghosts, but I bet those that do have a more scientific reason for their belief than theists do, which is nothing.

[rug]

5. There's tons of scientific evidence of ectoplasm.

[EvilAL]

8. They have been debunked.

Most of those ecto pics have been debunked. Mediums used all kinds of tricks to make these pictures, scarves, cotton(which is what that one looks to be), smoke etc.. Some of them are pretty convincing for the time they were created.

[rug]

10. I know. It was a sarcastic response to "a more scientific reason for their belief."

I thought the picture conveyed that.

BTW, this is where the picture came from: http://www.strangerdimensions.com

It's not a science journal.

[EvilAL]

23. Heheh, fair enough then.. :D. nt

[cbayer]

25. What scientific reason for a belief in ghosts is there?

False equivalency indeed.

[LeftishBrit]

43. There isn't a scientific basis for either. Faith, and cultural influences, in both cases

[Cartoonist]

45. The point I was trying to make, albeit poorly,

was that those who believe in ghosts are probably basing it on what they think is empirical evidence, despite its refutation. People who believe in God get there with absolutely no empirical evidence whatsoever.

[cbayer]

46. What empirical evidence is there for ghosts?

[Cartoonist]

49. Television

Along with Bigfoot and UFOs, there are many pseudo-documentaries that purport to prove their existence. And then there's seances and Ouija boards. Yes it's baloney, but it's hands-on baloney, something you can see and feel. God has no TV show, except those Hucksters like Huckabee. They never offer any proof of God's existence, not even a grainy video.

[cbayer]

50. TV provides empirical evidence?

So having a TV show give something legitimacy?

There is no proof of god and there is no proof of ghosts. Both may be true or both may be false, but there is no proof of either.

Why would you think that ghost believers somehow have a leg up?

[Cartoonist]

52. You're missing my point entirely

Under no circumstances am I using these examples to prove the existence of any phenomena. I personally do not believe in God or Ghosts. Neither one has any credibility with me. I am just saying that OTHER PEOPLE, when THEY consider whether or not such things exist, they have something more to consider than an old book.

[cbayer]

53. What I really think is happening here is that you dislike religion so much that

you are making the case that it makes more sense to believe in ghosts than god.

I still don't know what it is you think holds more water than "an old book", but I suspect you don't really have an answer for this.

[Cartoonist]

57. Bingo

After all, what is there to like? Genocide? Homophobia? Misogyny? I guess you have never seen these shows then. The ones on Ghosts actually have video with images. They can be debunked, but at least there's something to be debunked. Religion's got nothing.

[cbayer]

59. Yep. Those shows on ghosts have actual images….

making them much more plausible.

You are kidding, right?

[Cartoonist]

60. You're arguing with the wrong person

You need to talk to someone who believes in ghosts. That's not me.

[cbayer]

63. No, you just try and make the case that a belief in ghosts makes more sense.

[Cartoonist]

72. That's how I see it

A belief in God makes no sense to me at all because there isn't a shred of evidence supporting it. A belief in ghosts is just a tiny step up the intelligence ladder because there is some evidence. It's faulty evidence that is always debunked, but evidence is offered. So if there are two people in front of me and one of them believes in God and the other one believes in ghosts but not in God, then my opinion is that the person who does not believe in God has more sense, regardless of his belief in ghosts. The only reason you can be upset with my view is that you must be a theist, but not a believer in ghosts. In my opinion, you believe in the dumber of two options.

[cbayer]

73. I think it's hilarious that you are making the case for a belief in ghosts having some evidence.

One has to really have a pretty extreme hate of religion to actually go these lengths. That's the kind of hate that feeds religious extremists.

I am neither a theist nor a believer in ghosts, so I guess you will have to find some other way to judge me as dumb. Good luck with that.

I'm upset with your view because it is beyond ridiculous and only a reflection of your own extremism.

[Cartoonist]

75. Alert Bait

. . . so I guess you will have to find some other way to judge me as dumb.
-
Been there, found that.

You still haven't acknowledged the fact that there is video evidence of ghosts. Go ahead and debunk it, I don't mind. Meanwhile I sit here knowing that there has never been brought forward any video of God. You wouldn't think someone of such an omnipotent ego, who demands that his subjects worship him, would be so camera shy.

[cbayer]

76. What is alert bait?

There is no video evidence of ghosts, so you are right, I haven't acknowledged that fact. There is also "video evidence" of angels and Jesus regularly appears on pancakes. If you are going to give one of these credit, you can't really pick and choose.

No video of god? Really?

You are a Poe, aren't' you?

[Cartoonist]

78. Definition

Alert bait is daring someone to insult you personally so that you can claim they are being rude.

[cbayer]

80. Oh, thanks for that. I wasn't doing that, though.

If you look at my history, it is extremely rare for someone who responds to me to get a post hidden.

So if I am alert baiting, I must be very bad at it.

[DavidDvorkin]

6. What percentage, I wonder

The blogger says he has encountered some atheists who believe in ghosts. One? One million? They're foolish, but how representative are they?

I bet it's a very small percentage who believe in ghosts and/or reincarnation and/or other silly stuff. Compare that to 100% of theists who believe in the existence of a god or gods.

[rug]

11. I looked but he didn't quantify it.

It is sufficient though to illustrate that science is not the only path to atheism, if it's a path at all. I know of no experiment designed to disprove god(s).

[DavidDvorkin]

20. The burden of proof is not on the atheist

Science is a common path to atheism, from what I've heard and read. Not because of disproofs of the existence of god(s), but because it leads the student to look for non-supernatural explanations of natural phenomena. "I had no need for that hypothesis."

[rug]

27. It's currently a common path but it's far from the only path.

Often, that path itself becomes self-limiting.

The best arguments for atheism were made long before microscopes were invented.

[DavidDvorkin]

36. Science and the scientific approach to nature

existed long before the microscope -- indeed, long before the word "science" as we now use it.

[rug]

37. Where is the science in this?

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
- Epicurus

[DavidDvorkin]

38. In his case, it was philosophy

That's a separate discussion.

[rug]

39. "science is not the only path to atheism"

I believe that is the topic of the subthread.

[DavidDvorkin]

41. Actually, the subthread began with me posting that I suspected

that the percentage of atheists who believe in ghosts is low -- and obviously far, far lower than the percentage of theists who believe in god(s).

You then said that science is not the only path to atheism. I replied that I think it's a common one. The discussion has meandered a bit, but I have not asserted that science is the only path to atheism. Each post in this thread was a response to the one that preceded it, not a point-counterpoint over a specific assertion.

[EvilAL]

7. If ghosts would exist

would it really prove anything about any religion? Other than they might have got a hit on the 'life' after death thing. It definitely wouldn't prove heaven or hell, since they should be in one of those places. It wouldn't necessarily prove a soul either. They would have to be studied and observed properly to come to any conclusions about what they are. I don't believe in ghosts or anything like that. I don't think anyone can communicate with the dead either. Many people do though and it doesn't surprise me that some are atheists.

[Politicalboi]

9. Ghosts would have nothing to do with gods, angels or christians

I think most people wish that ghosts were real, but they're not. Ghosts are a chance to hope when you die you stay on Earth and play games on the living. UFO's on the other hand are still more of a possibility than gods or ghosts.

[hrmjustin]

12. I believe in the holy Ghost.

And yes I think ghosts may exist.

[rug]

13. The Greek word used was pneuma.

πνεῦμα, meaning wind, or breath, or spirit.

It's an interesting concept, that the third person of the Trinity is the breath of God upon us.

[hrmjustin]

14. i hope he has good breath.

[rug]

15. A touch of Altoids wouldn't hurt.

[okasha]

16. As an Episcopalian,

I'm sure you've encountered the hymn, "Breathe on Me, Breath of God."

[hrmjustin]

17. I always get my breath mints out of my oocket when I hear it.

[okasha]

18. And there you have it.

Proof positive that prayer produces measurable physical results.

[hrmjustin]

19. .

[AtheistCrusader]

21. Bullshit. A ghost-believing Atheist(TM) is about as likely as a unicorn-believing atheist.

This is made. the. fuck. up.

There is a VERY tiny minority of atheists that don't reject the ENTIRE premise of supernatural anything, but they are a VERY small minority.

This is the only angel I've ever seen:

[rug]

22. Tell him.

[cbayer]

24. He claims to have no beliefs in anything that does not comes with some kind of

proof. And he thinks that is the only rational position to have.

That is extreme. People are all over this spectrum and there is nothing wrong with that.

Believe in what you want, as long as it does no harm.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

26. supernatural is supernatural.

Gods, demons, ghosts, elves, unicorns, whatever. What, you only believe in magic critters only if they're less powerful than some arbitrary cutoff?

[AndreaCG]

28. Well I don't think it is exactly the same

Believing in god means you think some being created the universe rather than the Big Bang theory. Believing in ghosts means you believe there is life after death. The two are separate issues. There's no absolute scientific fact that proves what happens after we die. Some people say they have witnessed events that they don't think can be explained by science as we know it, like things being moved in a room when no one else is there. All we can know is there is a lot about the afterlife that we will not know while alive.

[cbayer]

31. This is not accurate.

While there are creationists, believing in god does not necessarily mean one dismissed the Big Bang theory. There is no absolute scientific fact that proves there is or is not a god.

Beliefs in things supernatural are not really very different from each other.

[AndreaCG]

32. That's a valid point

One that the Pope just made. I especially liked where he said god is not a magician with a wand. Thanks.

[cbayer]

33. It was pure coincidence that I found that article after responding to you.

But I am glad that he said it.

Hmmm……. mysterious, isn't it?

[AndreaCG]

34. : )

[OregonBlue]

29. Actually I think many of them believe in multiple dimensions. Ghosts are just those that they

are seeing who are somehow slipping over in to our dimension. I don't believe they worship them or claim they created the world in days. Nor to they go to church every Sunday and pray to them and count beads. I don't think they are the same.

[LeftishBrit]

47. No, but they may refuse to buy a house because they think it's haunted...

They may make decisions on the basis of something that they think that a ghost has communicated to them.

Etc.

It's not the same as religion, but it may also involve running aspects of your life on the basis of supernatural belief.

[ZombieHorde]

30. My wife is an atheist and a skeptic,

but if we watch a really scary movie, she ceases to be one for the rest of the night. I have even had to hang out in the bathroom with her while she went after watching a scary movie.

[longship]

35. Aha! I know the kind of movie.

My favorite is The Haunting, from 1963. Directed by Robert Wise, starring Julie Harris and Claire Bloom, with a pretty good supporting cast, including James Bond's Miss Moneypenny. It sticks fairly close to Shirley Jackson's psychological ghost tale, The Haunting of Hill House on which it is based.

My favorite in the book is this chilling setup near the beginning of the novel:

No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality; even larks and katydids are supposed, by some, to dream. Hill House, not sane, stood by itself against its hills, holding darkness within; it had stood so for eighty years and might stand for eighty more. Within, walls continued upright, bricks met neatly, floors were firm, and doors were sensibly shut; silence lay steadily against the wood and stone of Hill House, and whatever walked there, walked alone.

Certainly, one of the best ghost stories ever written. And certainly the best one ever filmed. (Forget the horrible remake.)

Good ghost stories are wonderful. Nothing like a nighttime chill.

Regards,
longship

[ZombieHorde]

42. Yeah, I love spooky movies. nt

[John1956PA]

51. I learned the word "preternatural" from "The Haunting."

The scene in which that word is used is when the harp spontaneously chimes out. The character who is the expert on paranormal activity observes that the harp's self-playing is in the realm of the preternatural, which is the category encompassing those things which are not explainable now, but which may be solved in the future.

[demigoddess]

40. I am an unbeliever and I have known several ghosts

in my life starting when I was about 8 years old. None of them are scary, just people who are dead. None of them tried to get me to do something, good or evil. I have a retarded daughter and one night I swear she saw one too. I felt him. He was reg height man wearing a three piece suit, smiling at her. That's all I know. I do not see them I feel them. Could be a scientific explanation, just one we don't know.

[LeftishBrit]

44. This is true - though some religious people also believe in ghosts

Many people are not consistent - whether an atheist who thinks religion is silly but believes in ghosts or astrology, or a religious person who considers all religions but their own to be superstitious and without evidence.

[cbayer]

48. When it comes to beliefs, I don't think consistency can be expected.

As beliefs are by their nature not backed up by evidence, there are as many variations of belief as there are believers.

[edhopper]

54. Some atheists mock religion

What percentage? Most? A few?

Some atheists believe in ghost. Okay, what percentage? I am sure there are atheists with many beliefs that are questionable.

But are these the same ones that mock religion? How many of them also believe in ghost? Is is a significant amount, or just someone he met once, or the friend of a cousin?

This October, I think it might be useful to entertain the possibility that irrational belief is all around us. Being an atheist may mean that one has managed to shed one particular form of it; it does not necessarily mean that one has escaped many other forms. As we pat ourselves on the back for shedding belief in gods and angels, we would do well to remain vigilant for other areas where we cling to beliefs without sufficient evidence.

Good point, poor way of getting there.

[cbayer]

55. Well, if we used the atheist group on this site as the standard, I would say most….

but, fortunately, it in no way represents atheists in general.

[edhopper]

56. It's the overlapping of the two I question.

I have the sense that the atheists who mock religion mock all supernatural beliefs.

Making his point moot.

[cbayer]

58. Good point, actually.

It is unlikely that they are the ones that also believe in ghosts.

They are just as likely to mock fellow atheists as they are believers.

[MineralMan]

62. Not many, I suspect.

Most atheists I know do not believe that any supernatural phenomena or entities exist. That would include ghosts. Most atheists believe that things are explainable through concrete, reproducible evidence. At least all the ones I know believe that.

I would argue that "atheists" who believe that supernatural entities exist are not actually atheists at all.

[rug]

64. Watch Mehta's video.

It is not your argument to make.

[MineralMan]

65. As an individual atheist, I can make any argument

I wish, based on my own point of reference and those of other atheists I know. Are you suggesting that I should not state my own position here?

[rug]

66. You are not in a position to say who is, or is not, an atheist.

[MineralMan]

67. I did not say that. I said, and I quote:

"I would argue that "atheists" who believe that supernatural entities exist are not actually atheists at all." I can and would make that argument. I am in a position to make such an argument. I did not say that they are not atheists. I said that I could "make an argument" to that effect.

You are not in a position to tell me what position I may or may not take. Truly.

[rug]

68. '"atheists" who believe that supernatural entities exist are not actually atheists at all.

The quotes are yours. The declaration is yours. Your use of the future conditional hardly disguises your declaration. Truly.

[MineralMan]

69. I said that I could make that argument. I have not made that argument

yet. I could make such an argument, however. That does not mean that my argument might be refuted. It just means that I can make the argument.

You can't quote my sentence without including the subject and verb in the sentence. They are crucial to what I wrote. Your quote is out of context, completely.

[rug]

70. So, do you think they are or not? It's not a difficult question.

Nevertheless, you won't answer it. It would be too, que se dice, direct.

[MineralMan]

71. What I think is only what I think.

Yes, I think that people who call themselves atheists but who believe in supernatural entities of any kind are not really atheists. I am capable of forming that opinion. I will not make the argument, however, because I consider this DU group to be an unfriendly place for atheists. I have not wish to argue points here. You'll not find me posting frequently in the Religion Group or any other group having to do with Religion on DU. I do post occasionally. As usually happens, I frequently regret doing so. It is a waste of my time, in most cases.

You do, however, have my opinion on this issue. In fact, if I write anything on DU that is not a quote from some other source, it is my opinion. The same is true, pretty much, of anyone who expresses an opinion here, rather than simply quoting another source. What I think, however, is just that. It's what I think. What you think may well differ from what I think.

[cbayer]

74. Wait, what? Are you the same person who just said this about 6 hours ago?

We are what we declare ourselves to be

[beam me up scottie]

77. MM was posting about the Baylor student who didn't want to call herself an atheist.

Here is his complete post to put your precious little quote mining nugget in context:

There is a difference between being nonreligious and

being an atheist. The two things are not the same. She is what she says she is, as are we all. She is nonreligious. I am an atheist. She's as welcome to her characterization of herself as I should be in my characterization of myself.

We are what we declare ourselves to be, pretty much.

MineralMan was exhibiting tolerance, something you claim to value but obviously don't recognize.

[MineralMan]

83. Ah, I see someone else has provided the context

for that quote. Yes, I said that. I trust people to declare their own beliefs and affiliations. If someone says they are a Christian, for example, I certain accept their declaration. Or a Muslim, Buddhist, agnostic or atheist. That is what they believe they are. I may, however, look at their actions and see to what degree they appear to believe in what they say they believe in. Then, I may well form a different judgment of the validity of their claim.

If you're going to quote me, please do me the courtesy of including the context. Thanks.

[SheilaT]

79. Just because someone doesn't believe

in conventional religion, doesn't mean a person might not hold other non-rational beliefs.

It's been my observation that most people who state a belief in ghosts have had experiences to support that belief. If you, personally, have never had any such experience and do not believe in such things, that's fine. But don't confuse conventional Christian belief with all other spiritual or (as I prefer to call it) non-rational beliefs. They are not one and the same.

[Zambero]

81. Indeed, some atheists believe in an afterlife

They just don't accept the notion of a single abstract overarching creator and eternal CEO governing the entire universe and calling shots for what might be perceived as lesser beings. Angels would tend to fall in line with a hierarchy of spiritual beings set up by an omnipresent god, lacking proof of existence based on any physical perception. Ghosts on the other hand would represent the spiritual survivors of mortal physical beings that we know to exist. The physical beings that we know of anyway. While I don't condone mockery of religious beliefs, there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding coming from any number of belief systems, likely contributing to what could be construed as offensive remarks.

[cbayer]

82. Agree. There are all kinds of atheists and believers.

I think the point is that one is particularly out of line for mocking believers in one kind of supernatural thing while embracing another one.