Latest Activity

Loren Miller commented on Loren Miller's group Quote Of The Day
"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the…"
1 hour ago
RichardtheRaelian left a comment for Molinda McCormick
""Happy Birthday!""
9 hours ago
Stephen Brodie and JimL are now friends
16 hours ago
Ian Mason commented on Sydni Moser's group Coffee Break
"I won't take that personally, Randall. "
23 hours ago
Randall Smith commented on Sydni Moser's group Coffee Break
"Ian, we have a threatening hurricane over here named after you!"
Loren Miller commented on Loren Miller's group Quote Of The Day
"The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. --…"
RichardtheRaelian left a comment for Anna
""Happy Birthday!""
Chris B commented on Adriana's group Freethought and Funny Bones
"I like Jonathan Pie, and if there's one thing I hate - because it's so degrading apart…"
Mrs.B commented on Adriana's group Freethought and Funny Bones
"Too frightening!"
Stephen Brodie commented on Adriana's group Freethought and Funny Bones
"A Statement of Intent"
Loren Miller commented on Loren Miller's group Quote Of The Day
"God is always the equivalent of ‘I do not know.’ -- Annie Besant Except that, to the…"
Ian Mason commented on Sydni Moser's group Coffee Break
"Something to light up the day. "
Ian Mason commented on Sydni Moser's group Coffee Break
"Home again after a weekend with my daughter and family. The grandsons seems to have endless…"
RichardtheRaelian left a comment for Nikki Alenius Hanninen
""Happy Birthday!""
Kurt Neuleuf posted a discussion

Changing times :Royalist or Republican

With the passing of the queen and all the pomp and pageantry going on here in Australia, people are…See More
Doug Hanlon commented on Sydni Moser's group Coffee Break
"About sixty years ago, the great sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset noted that of the dozen European…"
Stephen Brodie commented on Sydni Moser's group Coffee Break
"Tremendous Tooting Tour - Jolly Splendid London Walk Joolz Guides"
Doug Hanlon replied to Lachailill McLennan's discussion Think about it and consult a dictionary before commenting. I've gotten some idiotic responses to this. in the group Quote Of The Day
"Patriotism is the extension -- in theory -- of an ethical principle to all the people of your…"
Davy commented on Sydni Moser's group Coffee Break
"I will leave you with a few views upon the monarchy from the past. What can they see in the longest…"
Loren Miller commented on Loren Miller's group Quote Of The Day
"Only if we understand, will we care. Only if we care, will we help. Only if we help shall all be…"

We are a worldwide social network of freethinkers, atheists, agnostics and secular humanists.

"So, you're an Atheist/Scientist/Rationalist/Skeptic, eh?"

"Yes... And?"

"I saw a ghost - EXPLAIN THAT!"


If something similar hasn't happened to you guys yet (assuming you're all 'Atheists/Scientists/Rationalists/Skeptics', which I hope isn't necessarily the case, even if this is an Atheist forum), it will.

It may come as a surprise too. Perhaps you don't expect a loved one or a close friend to sincerely utter that damnable phrase with a face like a poo-proud toddler, but it could be them you have to confront. (Or humour.)

People - all of us - are silly.

We're all susceptible to irrationality, to assumption, to superstitious inklings and to bad judgement - but it can be helped. The first step: knowing we're flawed. Acceptance of ignorance and predictability. Knowledge of our cognitive habits, limits, and weaknesses... Or something.

Let me explain. I wouldn't like for all of what's written to come across substance-void and colourfully, baselessly assertive. Not all of it.

I say we're 'flawed', because we are. Our judgements are never anything other than context-skewed and inherently 'self-ish' - which is to say that it's extremely hard to really view 'reality' through anyone else's eyes. There is no true empathy, only highly relatable sympathy. We are our brains, and our brains haven't yet figured out a way to literally plug themselves into each other and exchange raw signal. For now, with regards again to 'empathy', for example, we interpret the outward signals of the brains of others - again within the context of our own biases and character - before coming to some sort of a conclusion as to how they're feeling (and how much we care).

Make sense?

What I think I'm trying to say, (very much) more concisely, is this: a person's perception is skewed by their history.

But how does this fit in? What am I trying to get at?

Allow me to clarify.

If someone comes to you saying they've seen a ghost, it's not unfair to assume that they're the sort of person willing to over-entertain the thought that they have in fact seen one, and that, were they a different person (with a different judgement-shaping history), then they'd probably not even be there challenging you on the matter in the first place.

Now I'm confusing me...

Put it this way: who stands a better chance of attributing hallucination/pareidolia, for instance, to 'ghost' - 'Steve', or 'Vicky the Neuroscientist'?

But the matter is really one of whether or not a person is willing and able to accept the response "I can't 'explain that', I don't have enough information. But it may have been..."

If they can't, I tell them this (emphasis mine):

I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of uncertainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything and there are many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we're here. I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose, which is the way it really is as far as I can tell.” - Richard Feynman.

That's not to say I don't enjoy the odd bit of imaginative speculation, it's just that I can entertain a thought without accepting it as fact. It's not that hard.

Not jumping on the 'ghost' bandwagon isn't 'close-minded', it's just cautionary. I'd rather, ultimately, sit on the fence - even if I do, admittedly, lean much more towards favouring a (perhaps presently non-existent) 'natural' explanation over a 'supernatural' one.

Want to change my mind? Show me the evidence. Solid evidence.

And some of the things, in case you were wondering, which don't quite qualify as 'solid evidence' include, to name a few:

  • Anecdote. Your own, or a story you've heard.
  • Many people believing in something.
  • People believing in something for 'thousands of years'.
  • A YouTube video.
  • Someone's blog.

I want reliable, repeatable proof!

Don't you?

Carnun :P

(Re-posted from 'The Ramblings of a Young Atheist' by the Author.)

Views: 125

Nice Comment

You need to be a member of Atheist Universe to add comments!

Join Atheist Universe

Comment was by Carnun on October 27, 2013 at 3:31pm

Ha, cheers Neal. ;)

I can't help but agree right back at you...

(And you're welcome.)

Comment was by Neal on October 20, 2013 at 11:53am

Lolz. Not rambling at all. I agree, anecdotal evidence is fairly useless. Arguing with someone who believes in an unprovable event is fairly useless.

Evidence is what it takes. And open minds should allow for a reasoned position on what they are skeptic about now.

Thanks for the blog.

Comment was by Carnun on September 15, 2013 at 3:48pm

Yep, it was an especially rambly one... :P


Comment was by Marianne on September 15, 2013 at 12:42am

You mentionned many things in that blog, Carnum;  the thing that rang the most bells with me was that we can never be in each other brain's...

© 2022   Created by Atheist Universe.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service