How is believing in the spirit world any more rational than believing in
God?

How is believing in the spirit world any more rational than believing in
God?

Just doesn't make any sense to me. There is no more scientific,
rational basis for believing a spirit world than there is for believing in
God. Guess it just shows that human beings must have a need to believe in
something beyond themselves and the observable universe.

How is believing in the spirit world any more rational than believing in
God? Just doesn't make any sense to me. There is no more scientific,
rational basis for believing a spirit world than there is for believing in
God. Guess it just shows that human beings must have a need to believe in
something beyond themselves and the observable universe.

-----------------------------------------------

"Bill, The Avender" <Avender@SpamMeNot.com> wrote in message

In alt.atheism on Sun, 28 Dec 2003 07:19:32 GMT, "Robert"
<bwooster1@remove.yahoo.com> wrote:

I know someone who claims to be an atheist, yet also believes in

ghosts.

Seems to me to be an absurd position, but I was wondering what others
thought?

Seems to me they both imply belief in the unknowable and unprovable.

So

how

is one easier to accept intellectually than the other?

Some people believe in a spiritual world that is parallel to the
physical world. In the physical world, look around you - there is no
one "Great Big Animal" that has produced us all or that controls us
all. To be truly parallel to this world, the spirit world couldn't
have such a being, either. Just a progression of increasingly complex
beings with no real "top spook" in evidence. I used to actually hold
this world view, so I understand it quite well. I don't actually
_believe_ it any more, though I do kinda' 'hope' it's true in the back
of my mind. I think being a ghost would be a very interesting
existence. :-)
--
L8r,
Bill, The Avender
~.~.~-~*~=~*~=~.~*~-~=~*~=~.~
I once teased my hair so much
that it took out a protective
order against me...
~.~.~-~*~=~*~=~.~*~-~=~*~=~.~

Wouldn't that make you an agnostic rather than a true atheist?

Not at all. For one thing, an agnostic is also either a theist or an
atheist - they either positively believe in a god (while admitting
that they can't know for sure) or they don't. But even if you're one
of the people who disputes the validity of defining the terms this
way, an atheists can believe in any number of supernatural beings so
long as they don't believe in a god. Elves and ghosts and unicorns
and dragons - all of these are things that atheists can believe in if
they feel led to do so.

I mean
believing in the spirit world seems no more sensible or less sensible

than

believing in God.

Atheism, while being a position many people arrive at through heavy
application of logic and "sense", doesn't mandate that the atheist
approach the world in a sensible way. The only required condition for
being an atheist is that you do not hold an active belief in any gods.
Non-practising theists can't be atheists, because even though they
aren't keeping up with their holy observances, they still harbor a
belief in their deity.

I would have to disagree with you in either case. The existence of a
parallel spirit world that operates somewhat like this one is a _much_
more rational than belief than believing in the existence of a single
supreme being that is clearly in evidence there, but not here. I
admit that it's still not _rational_, but it's a good bit closer to it
as it makes fewer assumptions than the "supreme being" belief.
However, I no longer harbor this belief except as a "wishful thinking"
or "daydreamy" type of thing.
--
L8r,
Bill, The Avender
~.~.~-~*~=~*~=~.~*~-~=~*~=~.~
I once teased my hair so much
that it took out a protective
order against me...
~.~.~-~*~=~*~=~.~*~-~=~*~=~.~