Can I believe in Ghosts and not God?

Well obviously I can, I can think what i want, 'cause I'm the boss of me.

The philosophy behind this, is that I think the premise of afterlife is unrelated to religion. For some reason I have had a fellow 'atheist' (I just usually say I don't believe in a Gods rather call myself an atheist) say I can't believe in one superstition, and not the other.

I think that traditionally people think religion has overseen the domain of death and spirit, but there is not steadfast rule that the two have to be related.

Can one believe the biological entity can create or be attached to a non biological component? Does that mean a spirit/soul has to be controlled by a god figure?
What is a spirit or soul? How does a ghost differ to inspirit/heaven?

I have seen ghosts, so I'm not here to argue if they are real or not. More a discussion, why can't someone who doesn't believe in God be of the belief that a energy entity can exist without it's biological host?

a reply to: zazzafrazz

I've honestly thought about that a lot too. I don't know if I necessarily believe in angels and demons, but I do believe in some paranormal stuff. I think life itself is a force of energy, and well according to the law of conservation cannot be created nor destroyed. Sometimes maybe life lingers a bit more after the physical aspect of it ends. Until we experience that part we will never know. The waterbug story is a good analogy for it.

a reply to: zazzafrazz

Assuming an entity can exist without physical form, what's to stop something we would perceive as a god from existing?

I'm in the same boat. I actually consider myself agnostic, cuz I just can't know for sure whether there is a superpower somewhere - but I have had too many experiences that convince me there is such a thing as life after death. I have actually considered the idea that we are god, in other words, we are the creators. No separate entity that runs things - it's all us.

a reply to: zazzafrazz

why can't someone who doesn't believe in God be of the belief that a energy entity can exist without it's biological host?

You can.
Of course you can.

Many atheist believe in spiritual stuff.

Your fellow atheist sounds like a staunchly dogmatic asshat.

a reply to: zazzafrazz

The philosophy behind this, is that I think the premise of afterlife is unrelated to religion.

Same here. Organized religion has screwed up everyones head down here.

Churchianity believes in a a god, angels and devils for instance, as long as they are sight unseen. If anything manifests thats supposed to be the devil, period.

What a way to learn about any spirit, soul, human or otherwise. The notion is decapitated out the gate.

The ultimate dumb down.

a reply to: zazzafrazz
I don't see the issue with the possibility of one, and not the other. Why can't there be many spirits, ghosts, entities, and none of them "God" in the religious sense, only in a collective sense? Similar to "spiritual atheism", though not quite.

As you know, traditional Theists believe in a literal "God" who supposedly created and rules the universe; while traditional Atheists reject the idea of "God" altogether.
Generally, Spiritual Atheists are people who do not believe in a literal "God" (thus the term "Atheist"), but still consider themselves to be (often deeply) "Spiritual" people.
There is no consensus among Spiritual Atheists regarding the literal existence of one's own "spirit" or a collective "spirit"; however, there is consensus that if any "spirit" does exist, it is not external to the universe and it is not "supernatural". Spiritual Atheists believe that nothing that exists or happens violates the nature of the universe; they believe that all such things only further define the nature of the universe.
For Spiritual Atheists, being "spiritual" means (at the very least) to nurture thoughts, words, and actions that are in harmony with the idea that the entire universe is, in some way, connected; even if only by the mysterious flow of cause and effect at every scale.
Therefore, Spiritual Atheists generally feel that as they go about their lives striving to be personally healthy and happy, they should also be striving to help the world around them be healthy and happy. ("Wholistic Ethics")
Spiritual Atheists generally recognize the word "God" as a personal name that has been given to the collective personality* of the infinite and eternal universe; just as your personal name is the name that has been given to your individual personality*. Even so, many Spiritual Atheists are extremely reluctant to make use of the word "God", due to the extreme desecration it has suffered by traditional Theists and Atheists alike.

Spritual Atheism

Atheists can believe what they like
Just do t upset the atheists

a reply to: Raggedyman

Why get nasty? Don't come in here with an anti atheist fight, take it elsewhere, that isn't what this thread is about.

a reply to: zazzafrazz

You sound like the opposite of my father. He believes in God but not ghosts.

On your question: Well I don't believe in God but I believe there are Cosmic Entities like Marvel. I believe these Cosmic Entities Guide us hence why we have reports of guardian angels or spirits sometimes intervening when people are in danger. I also believe in the Force.

I see no reason why the existence of ghosts requires a God. Anymore than the existence of people requires a God.

One can make the same argument for an afterlife. Just as one can conceive of life without a God. One can conceive of an afterlife existing without a God.

Obviously, if you are religious you will view ghosts and an afterlife through a religious prism. But you don't have to.

If ghosts are real there seems to be no barrier to them coming into being through a scientifically explainable process.

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
a reply to: zazzafrazz

I also believe in the Force.

That just makes a great quote

a reply to: zazzafrazz

I believe that in order for a ghost, as we think of them, to exist it is necessary to believe we have a soul. After all, the common descriptor for a ghost is a lost soul.

I don't think that a soul is contingent on the existence of a god. Having a soul may simply be the natural order of our universe for living things.

a reply to: zazzafrazz

Right, well Jesus said God is a spirit, many spirits have appeared as mist like apparitions or like transparent grey images almost fog like, other's have seemed to actually be living people and even to seem to not realise they are dead so maybe a sufficianly powerful spirit can manifest as a solid being that we would assume was just like us alive and physically incarnate when in fact they are really spirit's.

Under Jewish law there were period of what is know as purification, 40 days is one such period as when moses (Moshe) walked in the wilderness after leaving Egypt before he saw the burning bush.

After he made his "Manifestation" live again because his body was Spirit made solid, made flesh the Spirit Jesus (Word made flesh, word is shaped breath filled with meaning that meaning is God and our soul's are breath without shape so that we can form our own personality's) he spent 40 days on earth, he sometimes appeared to the disciples and ate with them and while he was in the tome many rose from death in Jerusalem and were seen by many, not coffin's flying out of the ground like the movie poltergeist but spirits that appeared alive or physical, then after the 40 days he ascended in sight of whitness with cloud's (as mist or spirit).

If the universe was manifest by God's will then it is technically a lesser spirit than god, a lower reality if you like.

But yes you can believe in spirit's that is why it is called belief, I would ask you though what is your concept of God.

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: zazzafrazz

I believe that in order for a ghost, as we think of them, to exist it is necessary to believe we have a soul. After all, the common descriptor for a ghost is a lost soul.

I don't think that a soul is contingent on the existence of a god. Having a soul may simply be the natural order of our universe for living things.

"Soul" is a religious term. And a "soul" is only required for certain ghost hypotheses. For example, if you believe ghosts are merely some type of "recording" of actual life. Then ghosts wouldn't need a "soul" anymore than the Humphrey Bogart movies in my DVD collection require the existence of Bogart's immortal soul.

a reply to: LABTECH767

To keep it on topic, and not about concept of god (which I answered in my opening statement anyway)I don't think a concept of god/s is required to think that an intelligent energy can exist without its biological host.

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: zazzafrazz

I believe that in order for a ghost, as we think of them, to exist it is necessary to believe we have a soul. After all, the common descriptor for a ghost is a lost soul.

I don't think that a soul is contingent on the existence of a god. Having a soul may simply be the natural order of our universe for living things.

Ever heard of the Stone Tape Theory?

The Stone Tape theory is the speculation that ghosts and hauntings are analogous to tape recordings, and that electrical mental impressions released during emotional or traumatic events can somehow be "stored" in moist rocks and other items and "replayed" under certain conditions. The idea was first proposed by British archaeologist turned parapsychologist Thomas Charles Lethbridge in 1961. Lethbridge believed that ghosts were not spirits of the deceased, but were simply non-interactive recordings similar to a movie.
Stone Tape Theory

a reply to: Moresby

I deliberately avoided the recorded energy idea of ghosts for a reason. The reason being that I was trying to reply to the nature of the "soul" as being a fundamental part of life.

The idea of a soul being strictly religious is rather ambiguous to me. The idea of the self transcending the physical body is present in many ideologies, it doesn't make it inherently religious.

Do you think that those people who existed before organised religions never thought of themselves as having "something beyond" mere physicality? Never tried to contact their antecedents?

a reply to: Klassified

See my above post.

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: Moresby

I deliberately avoided the recorded energy idea of ghosts for a reason. The reason being that I was trying to reply to the nature of the "soul" as being a fundamental part of life.

The idea of a soul being strictly religious is rather ambiguous to me. The idea of the self transcending the physical body is present in many ideologies, it doesn't make it inherently religious.

Do you think that those people who existed before organised religions never thought of themselves as having "something beyond" mere physicality? Never tried to contact their antecedents?

It's hard to say. Many early burial rituals seem to suggest that humans thought the physical body played some role in the person's passage into the afterlife. And the ancient Egyptian idea of the soul is much more complicated than the Christian. It had many parts. Part of it left the body at the point of death. But they also thought the physical body had a role in the afterlife.

Although we generally believe older civilizations had simpler concepts than our own, their concepts were probably more complex than ours. And over tens of thousands of years those ideas have been honed and simplified.

In other words, the idea of a singular soul carrying on after death without the physical body is probably a relatively recent concept.