The existence of "Ghosts" means...

[bennyboy]

Are you sure you're not a theist.

False reasoning. The existence of "ghosts" does NOT necessarily mean that there is a Creator(look at my poll options). Your confusing the definition or creating a false cause to your statement(of course missing premises).

The thing is. . .

The reason most atheists are atheists is because they choose not to believe in obviously made-up bullshit, or in the superstitions of uneducated bumpkins. Not sure how to tell if it's a silly superstition? Easy clue-- there's no fucking evidence, except the anecdotes of goofballs who want to feel their unachieving, boring lives have some value. I'll bet a million dollars this guy believes in ghosts too:

[CristW]

False reasoning. The existence of "ghosts" does NOT necessarily mean that there is a Creator(look at my poll options). Your confusing the definition or creating a false cause to your statement(of course missing premises).

The thing is. . .

The reason most atheists are atheists is because they choose not to believe in obviously made-up bullshit, or in the superstitions of uneducated bumpkins. Not sure how to tell if it's a silly superstition? Easy clue-- there's no fucking evidence, except the anecdotes of goofballs who want to feel their unacheiving, boring lives have some value. I'll bet a million dollars this guy believes in ghosts too:

I am sure most scientists are also atheists and/or agnostics. Nevertheless, there are tons of evidence that something is out there not sure if "Ghosts" are tied with another phenomenon? When the epistemological evidence is not attainable most scientists provide a "theory".

The superstition assumption is when "ghosts" are tied with the belief of a "hell or heaven" or afterlife. Simply, "religions" are PROVEN flawed conclusions of any given phenomena.

With that being said, simply seeing an apparition or "ghost" does not prove there is an afterlife. If there are other phenomena being observed.

[ignoramus]

OP, this can turn into a slippery slope real quick.
If ghosts, then lingering soul?
If soul, then maybe heaven and hell?

And since we know the bible is bs, then all is bs.
Pretty sure it's not aliens (and I'm crazy star trek).
It's almost always those under duress, etc, who see these things.
You don't need to see something from your optic nerve to see something.
The brain is a very powerful tool and sometimes if you want to see something badly enough, you can and will. Also, I will hazard a guess and say that the vast majority who claim to have seen or felt a ghost are religious to start with. Therefore are biased to start with.

[Mr.wizard]

What do you mean by ghost? Depending on what was discovered would determine what we could infer from it.

[CristW]

OP, this can turn into a slippery slope real quick.
If ghosts, then lingering soul?
If soul, then maybe heaven and hell?

And since we know the bible is be, then all is bs.
Pretty sure it's not aliens (and I'm crazy star trek).
It's almost always those under duress, etc, who see these things.
You don't need to see something from your optic nerve to see something.
The brain is a very powerful tool and sometimes if you want to see something badly enough, you can and will. Also, I will hazard a guess and say that the vast majority who claim to have seen or felt a ghost are religious to start with. Therefore are biased to start with.

1. What is "OP"? (Ad Hominem?)
2. "Ghosts" could simply be ETs operating in another dimension to scare off people (Not a slippery slope example...rather "theory").
3. People under duress do see things but this was never part of the discussion (just one example why "ghosts" are not real but rather the behaviour of the brain - Hippocampus - which leads to the Agent of Sociolization in Sociology). I could agree with you on this.
4. The case of demonic possession along with the association of "ghosts" is an example of "religious' indoctrinization which affects the psychology of the individual into misinterpreting mental illness and other phenomena.

---

What do you mean by ghost? Depending on what was discovered would determine what we could infer from it.

There is no concrete data therefore a "theory" has to be developed. Again, if "ghosts" were past people who are dead then the whole planet would be infested with "Ghosts".

"Theory":

1. The omission of a "ghost" infested planet means...
2. The addition of another phenomena being observed (UFOs/ETs) could be the origin of LIMITED apparitions or "ghosts".
3. There are also no concrete evidence that humans have been visited by ETs because we would be continously interacting with them(general public). Unless, of course, they do not want to be seen.

[Cyberman]

My reasoning does not lead to the FINAL conclusion that there is a creator. A believing "theist" does not create an argument for the DOUBT of a creator. Only an agnostic or an atheist creates the doubt for a creator.

A person does not have to believe there is a creator to be a theist. A theist, by definition, believes in one or more gods. That's it. Just as with the term 'atheist', you are not entitled to draw any other inferences about that person's beliefs or lack thereof.

[CristW]

OP, this can turn into a slippery slope real quick.
If ghosts, then lingering soul?
If soul, then maybe heaven and hell?

And since we know the bible is be, then all is bs.
Pretty sure it's not aliens (and I'm crazy star trek).
It's almost always those under duress, etc, who see these things.
You don't need to see something from your optic nerve to see something.
The brain is a very powerful tool and sometimes if you want to see something badly enough, you can and will. Also, I will hazard a guess and say that the vast majority who claim to have seen or felt a ghost are religious to start with. Therefore are biased to start with.

I forgot to mention. Just because there are "Ghosts" that does not necessarily means there is a Hell or heaven. What if another "religion" was expressing and saying something truthful like... reincarnation or that afterlife is without hell?

I just wanted to make sure the argument covers all possibilities.

---

My reasoning does not lead to the FINAL conclusion that there is a creator. A believing "theist" does not create an argument for the DOUBT of a creator. Only an agnostic or an atheist creates the doubt for a creator.

A person does not have to believe there is a creator to be a theist. A theist, by definition, believes in one or more gods. That's it. Just as with the term 'atheist', you are not entitled to draw any other inferences about that person's beliefs or lack thereof.

Ok, I should have said...creator(s). Big deal. But thanks for the definition even though I already knew it because it is INFERED in my previous post!

[Cyberman]

No, it can't have been inferred by your post, because the definition of theist does not, by itself, imply belief in a creator. Where did you get that it did from what I said?

[CristW]

No, it can't have been inferred by your post, because the definition of theist does not, by itself, imply belief in a creator. Where did you get that it did from what I said?

Yes, it can be INFERRED!...

(A)Theism !!!

[Cyberman]

And what part of that even hints at a creator?

Plural punctuation is not an argument, by the way. Well, not in favour of anything complimentary, anyway.