Why does atheism so often include skepticism ...

[Elessarina]

a

[Animavore]

But what could these things be? If they are a simple explanation, like for instance a tramp living under the house, a mote of dust reflecting light or some fish giving mating calls out to sea (just some of the things which have been mistaken for ghosts) and of course complete hoaxes (think Amytiville) then why even posit some 'other-worldly' explanation without basis?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I don't dismiss anything, I just ask for proof. No proof, I'm not interested.

[klr]

I'm an equal-opportunity skeptic. No woo is off-limits for me. God just happens to be the biggest and most important target.

[Animavore]

Even the Wiki entry for this film suggests that it is only a film and does not seem to be tied in with any real life events.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranormal ... al_Version

[Mishakal]

I think that's reasonable, after all human beings are finite entities in an infinite multiverse, there are things going on that we will most likely NEVER comprehend, but that doesn't mean that they have a supernatural origin. They are just events that we have not evolved enough to even preceive and we might not ever reach that point due to the very high risk of extinction.

[Rum]

I think what bothers me is that often something unexplained - and of course there is a great deal which is - can suddenly be moved to the 'woo' box and people associate these things with what we might call the 'supernatural' lumping them together with ghosts, spiritualism and the like, rather than simply being open minded and ready to explore the issue with the aid of rational inquisitiveness.

There is a tendency to take a rather lazy 'spooky' route in my view.

[Elessarina]

But what could these things be? If they are a simple explanation, like for instance a tramp living under the house, a mote of dust reflecting light or some fish giving mating calls out to sea (just some of the things which have been mistaken for ghosts) and of course complete hoaxes (think Amytiville) then why even posit some 'other-worldly' explanation without basis?

What do you mean by "other-worldy"? At some point we didn't understand the Sun or the Moon or the Stars or the weather...

[Elessarina]

Even the Wiki entry for this film suggests that it is only a film and does not seem to be tied in with any real life events.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranormal ... al_Version

I never suggested it was Ani nor believed it was based on anything real.. I just said I found it creepy. But that was just what got me thinking on this subject.. because not believing in God seems by some people to require absolute denial of anything that would fall into a category of things we can't find a logical explanation for

[Animavore]

But what could these things be? If they are a simple explanation, like for instance a tramp living under the house, a mote of dust reflecting light or some fish giving mating calls out to sea (just some of the things which have been mistaken for ghosts) and of course complete hoaxes (think Amytiville) then why even posit some 'other-worldly' explanation without basis?

What do you mean by "other-worldy"? At some point we didn't understand the Sun or the Moon or the Stars or the weather...

In the cases I mentioned above the phenomena were attributed to the supernatural by people involved until they were investigated and it turned out they weren't supernatural after all. I think you'll find the sun, the moon and the wind were also attributed to supernatural forces at one time (ie God) and like-wise turned out not to be.
Exactly which cases are you talking about which have been consigned to the 'woo' box before they were even investigated?

[Elessarina]

I think that's reasonable, after all human beings are finite entities in an infinite multiverse, there are things going on that we will most likely NEVER comprehend, but that doesn't mean that they have a supernatural origin. They are just events that we have not evolved enough to even preceive and we might not ever reach that point due to the very high risk of extinction.

Hi Mish.. well i was not implying that there was a "supernatural" origin

I just found this in the Wikipedia entry on "supernatural", so i guess maybe this is what I was trying to get at..

Another part of a larger nature
This is a view largely held by monists and process theorists. According to this view, the "supernatural" is just a term for parts of nature that modern science and philosophy do not yet properly understand, similar to how sound and lightning used to be mysterious forces to science. Materialist monists believe that the "supernatural" consists of things in the physical universe not yet understood by modern science, while idealist monists reject the concept of "supernatural" on the grounds that they believe "nature" is the non-material. Neutral monists maintain that "nature" and "supernature" are artificial categories as they believe that the material and non-material are both either equally real and simultaneously existent, or illusions that stem from the human mind's interpretation of reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatur ... _mechanism

[Animavore]

I have yet to come across any reported supernatural occurrence which didn't have a natural explanation but if you have any you'd like to share I can look into them.

[Elessarina]

Exactly which cases are you talking about which have been consigned to the 'woo' box before they were even investigated?

I'm not getting into it as I can feel a ripping apart coming...I shouldn't have started this thread

[Rum]

Exactly which cases are you talking about which have been consigned to the 'woo' box before they were even investigated?

I'm not getting into it as I can feel a ripping apart coming...I shouldn't have started this thread

possession?

[Azathoth]

Exactly which cases are you talking about which have been consigned to the 'woo' box before they were even investigated?

I'm not getting into it as I can feel a ripping apart coming...I shouldn't have started this thread

possession?

Huge fart, better out than in.