Ghosts are Proof of God

I think you misunderstood my comment?
This would be an example of what I implied, I said as much myself earlier, Buddhism also hinges on reincarnation without a god.

We do not disagree on this.

 

Interesting that you would choose another religion with a teaching that cannot be proven.... ie.... reincarnation. Where is the objective empirical evidence of reincarnation.

 

There isn't any. There isn't any empirical evidence for anything being discussed here. The challenges to Yosh's statement is less that he is providing no evidence to support his propositions but that he is stating that they are the only valid possibility.

His statement is that if there are ghosts, there must be an afterlife and if there is an afterlife, there must be God (not any god, God - proper noun, specific and individual). Proving or disproving the existence and nature of ghosts (or gods for that matter) is beyond the scope of us here. Proving or disproving the logical legitimacy of those definitive assumptions isn't.

Regardless of the outcome though, we'll still end up with the conclusion that God could exist but we don't know either way.

 

I don't think so. I would imagine they don't believe there is such a thing as a soul.

 

Good, clear, concise final statement. That final statement is controlled by the philosophy that incorporates the system of logic that you utilize. I commend you on the conclusion that you reached in that final statement.

Proving or disproving something based on a system of logic, really proves nothing, as the philosophy will likely be opposed by another philosophy. Subsequently, something may be proven to the standards within the philosophy you use but not necessarily proven within the standards of another philosophy. The question then rests upon "whose philosophy is correct?"

 

This might sense if you were honest for once in your argument. For once you should avoid derailing the thread and allow Yosh to make his own argument. The thread is not about the obvious meaning of atheist, but the connection between ghosts and an supposed god,

Atheism; a-theism. The absence of a personal god.

Educate yourself.

 

Ghost sitings are evidence of wishful thinking, illness or fear. They don't exist.

A draft in an old building, a trick of lights and shadows or the creaking of an old building are NOT evidence.

 

There is only one 'absolute tenant' of being an atheist and that is the lack of a belief in a god or diety. While it may be that a majority of atheists (or at least the loudest ones) do not believe in any form of afterlife they do not speak for everyone.

Simply because you have "heard it claimed over and over" is your source?

 

Really? Look is a dictionary. Look at any definition of atheist, and then look at eth definition of deist.

And this is atheist idea of 'science' and logic? Being wrong and a jerk about it? Yep, that is atheism.

Nice to see athiests still lack the ability to correct one of their own, even when they are seriously wrong.

 

Not according to one of your own.

 

Look at the root words.. Atheist is like Amoral, Atypical.. Its the absense of belief in a higher power or Creator god.

 

I agree, Wolverine does not.

 

Atheism is the rejection of a personal god.

Educate yourself.

 

Is there a god that is not personal ?

 

As I said, look at the root words.. What is the difference in God and a personal God?

Atheists reject the notion of ALL gods.

 

....agreed

 

No, it's Wolverine's idea of the definition of atheism.
And it's wrong, of course.

Not as wrong as this, though:

No, that's your idea about atheism.

yawwn...

 

A theistic power is a god that interacts with people on a person level, intervention, answering prayer, etc.

A deistic god is essentially a "toothless" entity, does not interact with anyone on a personal level, and is commonly referred to being a force that started the universe and left it to go from there.

There is a substantial difference between theism and deism. Theism is dismissible due to a lack of evidence, deism is a bit harder to outright dismiss due to the broad definition and is essentially indistinguishable from a secular point of view. Atheism is the rejection of a personal god, many will reject the notion of all gods, however that is what the word means.

This whole discussion of the meaning of atheism is just an attempt to change the topic, Yosh is simply evading the direct questions asked of him.

 

^
That's almost correct, and atheism, in contrast to your statement, is the disbelief of both.

No, deism is not indistinguishable from a "secular" view, it postulates a creator god.
Historically, deism was, at the time, as far as one could safely go without being outcast as a blasphemer or godless, and it was quite popular amongst academics.

 

In practice, yes. By definition, not necessarily.

 

And neither definition applies to ATHEIST.. Look at the root words.

 

Hmmmmmmm...... I will have to concede. I was looking at the issue differently.

 

Kudos to the man who has the integrity to admit when he was wrong, this is a very rare occasion on this forum!

My honest respects.

 

No problem.............

 

No sense dragging it knowing full well I was looking at it in the wrong context.