Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[-Fran-]

Leaving the question of God's existence open, however, is skeptical.

For me, skeptical, in this case, is more like, stuffing the question of god's existance away in a box, until there's a reason to re-open it... I guess

ETA:
Which is me saying that, just as santa this questions haven't got enough going for it, to keep it open, or leave it open. But I haven't totally obliterated it either, in case something new should come along, which I, personally, doubt.

 

[CFLarsen]

If you're certain of the conclusion - provisional or not - then you are no longer being skeptical.

I don't see how you can certain and at the same time argue that the conclusion is provisional. Please explain.

Are you going to address my post #253?

 

[jmercer]

Do you have some specific rebuttal?

To what? Your thoughts about people who believe in God?

That's off topic.

The OP and thread has to do with - as the title says - "Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?". My position is clear. If you have reached a conclusion about God, you are no longer being skeptical, and can not claim to be a skeptic on the subject.

Skepticism is a tool used to determine truth (hopefully more often correctly than not.) It's not a club you join with membership criteria. Anyone can be a skeptic on any given subject without being skeptical on any other subject.

In example, you've proclaimed yourself to be an atheist. You can no longer claim to be skeptical or a skeptic concerning God or religious beliefs. You may, however, continue to be skeptical on many other subjects unrelated to God or religion.

People are often labeled skeptics if they predominantly use skepticism as a tool to determine truth. That's the only criteria for the label that I know of, although the label is often used derisively by people when someone challenges their long-cherished beliefs.

 

[ruckenheim]

In a word, yes. No God, just facts.

 

[jmercer]

I don't see how you can certain and at the same time argue that the conclusion is provisional. Please explain.

That's your argument, Claus. Define "provisional conclusion", since you brought it up.

Are you going to address my post #253?

Cross-posted, and I didn't see it until you pointed it out. However, you're moving the goalposts, and I'm not playing.

I am, however, going to leave for the next few days on a holiday as of this very moment. If this thread is still running when I return, I'll comment if appropriate.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

To what? Your thoughts about people who believe in God?

That's off topic.

The OP and thread has to do with - as the title says - "Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?". My position is clear. If you have reached a conclusion about God, you are no longer being skeptical, and can not claim to be a skeptic on the subject.

My post was an attempt to logically prove that a skeptic must be an atheist. Your assertion is clear, but you have yet to address my points, or anyone else's points. You are merely pontificating.

 

[-Fran-]

I don't know If I am totally misunderstanding things here, but the "provisional" comes in with the "promise" I've made myself that when new evidence shows me otherwise, I will change my mind about certain things. Provisional just means then that I agree to follow the evidence. That doesn't mean that I can't reach conclusions that I am in fact sure of, according to current evidence.

I think you can be as sure about some things as it is reasonable to be (which in every day life means you have reached a conclusion) and in fact still be skeptic. I wouldn't be skeptic though if I kept being sure of my reached conclusion even after new evidence have clearly shown it to now be wrong. Which is what I mean by stuffing god in a box and put him away, there are no reasons for me today to even consider him to be real. I will pull the box out again when (and if) there comes a reason to. I've done the same thing with other fairy tale creatures, and characters of legend. I can't go around keeping the questions about a million characters that are most likely made-up, open

 

[CFLarsen]

That's your argument, Claus. Define "provisional conclusion", since you brought it up.

How on Earth can you talk about skepticism and not know what "provisional conclusions" are?

Cross-posted, and I didn't see it until you pointed it out. However, you're moving the goalposts, and I'm not playing.

No, I'm not moving the goalposts. You cannot ignore the factor of an intervening God.

I am, however, going to leave for the next few days on a holiday as of this very moment. If this thread is still running when I return, I'll comment if appropriate.

It will be here.

 

[NeilC]

Given only these two options (which of course is the real, binary state of affairs):

1. God exists
2. God does not exist

Would a skeptic, given the evidence we have, pick 1 or 2? Are there any skeptics here that would pick 1?

 

[-Fran-]

Given only these two options (which of course is the real, binary state of affairs):

1. God exists
2. God does not exist

Would a skeptic, given the evidence we have, pick 1 or 2? Are there any skeptics here that would pick 1?

I guess, using the argument that a skeptic should keep the question of god open and don't come to a conclusion, that to be skeptic you would simply have to refuse to pick, regardless of evidence, or lack thereof? Personally, I think it is being more in line with skepticism to pick option 2, given the current evidences, and only consider picking 1 if other (sufficient) evidence turns up.

 

[Big Les]

We keep asking this but no one ever seems to answer. Unlike astrology or faries, how exactly does one scientifically test for God? The responses keep going back to Santa or the FSM, but they simply don't answer the question. How exactly do we scientifically test for God?

God as originally conceived and described in most religious texts - rather easily. You test all the claims of miracles, of making crops grow, of responding to prayers, of burning bushes, of people turning to salt etc. But clearly none of those claims stand up any more, and no sceptical religious person would be able to make them. No, they appear to believe in a version of god so ephemeral, so watered down, so impotent, that he/she/it leaves no evidence trail. Hence, no claims, hence, compatibility with a sceptical world view. That's fine. What I'm not clear on is the difference between this position and that of someone who believes in fairies, but doesn't claim that they can be proven. Ones that are invisible and utterly undetectable. The old invisible dragon thing. Why, without any evidence, and with the original versions of all the recorded gods totally debunked, would you persist in believing in fairies, or a god that has no presence, no influence, effectively no existence. What is this god? If it does exist, but isn't able to actually do anything, what's the difference between him/her/it and the invisible fairies?

Bearing in mind any form of contact with "god" would fall under the definition of being testable, on what basis does one believe in an utterly intangible god?

There's miles of distance between "I'm a skeptic, but I think there might be something to Bigfoot sightings" or "I'm a skeptic, but I still am a religious believer" and "I'm a skeptic but Bigfood exists and/or Jesus fixed my broken arm after the doctors X-rayed it, put it in a cast and had me rest it for a month."

Of course there is. A world of difference. I agree. There is no conceivable harm that could come from such a belief. I have as much time for a sceptic that chooses to believe in a god without evidence as I do an atheist one. I just want to understand them better. In a way, I suppose it's because I would rather like to be able to hold a similar belief, rather than be truly alone in life and gone forever in death (assuming this god allows for some form of afterlife, I don't know).

Let me stress this again for the thousandth time - No one who thinks skeptics who are religious should be embraced is suggesting religious claims should be considered a no fly zone. We're merely suggesting that we're a lot more concerned about recruiting people who fight Nigerian spam scams, homeopathy, YECism, PSI, Ufology, conspriacy therories, etc. who happen to be religious believers than in smacking them down for believing in something that is outside of the perview of the scientific method which, at it's heart, is skepticism.

Again, absolutely fine. You agree that such beliefs are open to being challenged then? It's just that one or two reactions from the religious came across as overly defensive, and some of those from those keen not annoy the former seemed to be saying "sssh, we need these people!". I would think of all religious people, that sceptical ones would be most open to discussion about it using the common ground of scepticism. But then I'm probably underestimating some of the atheist responses that have put some backs up - I hope I haven't been one of them.

 

[Belz...]

There you go.

By your definition, of course.

 

[Mobyseven]

Name one.

Reincarnation.

Want a second one?

I am god, but I absolutely refuse to prove as such to anybody.

Want a third?

We all only exist in the imagination of a brain floating in a vat in the 'real' universe.

If there are a finite number of claims that can be made about the universe that are true, it must mean that there are also a finite number of questions that we can ask about the universe that will give true answers.

You are in effect saying that there is a limit to knowledge of the universe.

Which, given that the current accepted and scientifically supported model of the universe suggests that the universe is finite and not infinite, is a reasonable position to provisionally accept.

That's true: If you believe in astrology, you have already given up reason and critical thinking, so there is no reason not to believe in fairies.

However, once you have abandoned reason, you are probably not going to use reason not to believe in other things. You believe in astrology because you like the idea that astrology is true, but you don't believe in psychic surgery, because you don't like that idea.

Irrelevant. We weren't discussing whether one would have to abandon reason to believe an irrational claim is true, we were discussing whether skepticism could be applied to untestable claims.

A fool can ask more questions than 10 wise men can answer.

...so?

How do you arrive at this conclusion? Is it not possible that there are an infinite number of true claims about the universe?

Not in a finite universe, which, as I mentioned before, is the current accepted model of the universe.

How about the claim that there are a finite, rather than an infinite number of true claims that can be made about our universe? Isn't that an untestable claim?

No, it is a logical conclusion that one must reach based upon the primary premise that the universe is finite. That isn't to say that there aren't many true claims about the universe, simply that there are a theoretically finite amount as compared to the theoretically infinite amount of false claims.

 

[articulett]

All skeptics can agree that many gods and religions are false and that humans are prone to these sorts of beliefs, right? We can also agree that there is no evidence that there is anything "supernatural" or that consciousness can exist outside of a brain. We can also agree that many things thought to be of supernatural origins were just illusions, delusions, misperceptions, confusions, myths, confusing correlation with causation, pareidolia, etc. We know that drugs and electrical stimulation can give people experiences which they describe using religious terminology.

These are all evidence based assertions. I think it's perfectly skeptical to say that, until proven otherwise, all gods (and other invisible forms of consciousness--souls, demons, angels, etc.) fall into one of the above categories-- that is, there is a natural, prosaic explanation for what people are claiming.

Just because someone's version of god might exist in some way doesn't mean that there's a 50/50 probability on the issue. I think it's perfectly skeptical to presume that things do not exist-- until or unless there is actual measurable evidence of their existence. That' a good way to understand the world, isn't it? What skeptic keeps their mind open about everything indefinitely? I think it makes sense to base your beliefs on the best available evidence. We have tons of evidence that people are prone to certain types of beliefs that aren't true. We even know why and how they get these beliefs and why they might have evolved.

I wouldn't want to make anyone feel unwelcome-- but I'm tired of religious believers acting like belief and non-belief are equally rational. When it comes to entities that are indistinguishable for schizophrenic delusions, then I'd say the non-believer is far more rational-- far more likely to be correct--

Gods are invisible, immeasurable, differently defined "beings"-- those making an assertion about them to me, shouldn't expect my deference and respect for such opinions on a skeptics forum. If they don't want to examine such claims, then they probably shouldn't state them as facts or expect skeptics to automatically respect such claims. Skeptics are free to believe what they want. But skeptics are also aware, I'm sure, that all the belief in the world doesn't change reality-- the facts that are the same for everybody no matter what they believe.

If someone thinks believing makes them good or moral or that faith is necessary for something-- I want the evidence which shows that to be true. I think faith makes people gullible and vapid not moral and honest. People can believe whatever they want--but they better not expect me to respect their "opinions" any more than they are prepared to respect mine.

 

[This is The End]

A lot of people I've talked to have the impression that non-atheists aren't welcome here. I try to dispute that where I can, but you guys don't make it easy.

What they don’t understand is for others to just “deal with it” they need to say nothing at all or define their woo belief specifically.

Saying nothing, others can “deal with this”.
Saying specifics, others can “deal with this”.
Saying you believe in some woo but not being specific, unacceptable.

Let’s not equate “evidence?” with “people not being welcome somewhere”.


Anyone read my post on the first page?

 

[articulett]

I think everyone is welcome here... however, they probably won't continue to feel welcome if they spout beliefs as though the were facts and become offended when others don't defer or ask questions on issues they are not used to having questioned. They can avoid the threads that bother them. Nobody knows what anyone's faith is unless that person says...

If your faith is good or true, why would it matter if others didn't believe it or thought it was silly or unlikely? If you need people to show respect for your faith or for faith based notions, then this forum might not be the place for such you. I'm offended by those who come here to preach, but don't seem to understand that they have stuff to learn. I'm offended by those who insult skeptics as a whole. And I'm offended by the self appointed experts who seemingly have no current knowledge on the subject they are pretending to have expertise in (woo or non-woo).

If someone is uncomfortable around atheists it might be illuminating for them to ask themselves why. Atheists aren't usually free to be vocal about their beliefs in regular life because of all the aspersions cast upon them by the faithful and this idiotic notion that you can't be moral without faith. I like the internet so I can experience this freedom. I don't want to have to pretend that I think faith is a good means of knowing something-- I don't think it is. I think of the faithful as victims of a gullibility meme inflicted upon them by the people they trust. If their god is so almighty, I should think he could fight his own battles. And why should people fear words. I fear crazy religions more than I fear verbal exchange online.

I don't want to tone it down here; I have to tone things down enough in my real life. Besides T'ai and Iamme have been here for years... those are theists that there actually is hostility towards.... and they seem to feel ever welcome despite regular trouncings (of course T'ai has everyone on ignore... thin skinned theists can do the same, right?).

Most gods are so poorly defined that it's hard to tell exactly what a believer believes that is somehow different than a non-believer anyhow. Oliver believes in something--but who knows what that something is. I want to know why people have bought into a notion that "believing in something" is good "just because". So if they spout beliefs... I'm likely to prod.

 

[-Fran-]

If your faith is good or true, why would it matter if others didn't believe it or thought it was silly or unlikely? If you need people to show respect for your faith or for faith based notions, then this forum might not be the place for such you.

I agree with this, and that is also why the strong reactions from a few about this thread seems odd to me.

UnrepentantSinner said above:

We're merely suggesting that we're a lot more concerned about recruiting people who fight Nigerian spam scams, homeopathy, YECism, PSI, Ufology, conspriacy therories, etc. who happen to be religious believers than in smacking them down for believing in something that is outside of the perview of the scientific method which, at it's heart, is skepticism.

Beside using the word 'recruiting' which I also found a bit odd, I am certainly not saying that anyone should be smacked down, but really, if the theist skeptics can't even handle a thread like this (and I still can't see the smacking in here) are they actually that good "recruits" to begin with? Surely they should be able to handle at least as much attack on their own thoughts and beliefs as they are themselves ready to hand out to the groups mentioned above?

Yes, I am fully aware that these groups above do harm and should be fought against, and no I do not think that the theist sceptics around here should be fought and I don't think they do harm (quite the contrary in some cases, obviously) but I do think they should be able to handle being discussed and questioned, even rather tough discussions and questions. Just like the rest of us. That's my opinion, because this place is not only about fighting harm (or about recruiting people for this fight, or creating allies against an enemy) it is also about discussing "skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science" - and that does not exclude things that are not harmful, such as a fairly benign and not much expressed belief in a deity.

We are allowed to be tough on those things too around here, as far as I have understood it. Do we have to? No, not really, but there are hundreds of threads here that likewise didn't have to be started. Someone, obviously felt they wanted to start such a thread as this one though, and the rules does not say he/she can't. There are sure reasons why some should not start threads on some things. The reason that some members might be annoyed about their beliefs being questioned is not a good reason not to start a thread, that's my personal opinion.

I think the theist skeptics must deal with this, and not take it personally, because it isn't. At least not from me.

 

[Apology]

You might be right. JREF may want that. There are risks with a free forum, such as that some groups, or individuals will not feel welcome. If JREF wants to "clean" up here though, it's their prerogative (sp?).

I think it's notable that one of the people I attempted to refer was an atheist scientist who felt that the forums were too "bullying" and tended to just beat people down rather than try to convince them. He had already heard of the place before the membership drive and had already decided he didn't care for it much. I was kind of surprised because he enjoys lunacy like the Bigfoot stuff and Virgin Mary pareidolia, but I really didn't see any room for me to debate. I understand that we need to be able to speak freely, but you have to admit, some users are pretty heavy handed and a lot of threads end up in sissy slapfights.

 

[articulett]

I think it's notable that one of the people I attempted to refer was an atheist scientist who felt that the forums were too "bullying" and tended to just beat people down rather than try to convince them. He had already heard of the place before the membership drive and had already decided he didn't care for it much. I was kind of surprised because he enjoys lunacy like the Bigfoot stuff and Virgin Mary pareidolia, but I really didn't see any room for me to debate. I understand that we need to be able to speak freely, but you have to admit, some users are pretty heavy handed and a lot of threads end up in sissy slapfights.

But I find some of the apologists like unrepentant sinner more offputting to new members like Fran and six7s than the atheists... Oh, and speaking of apologists-- "the atheist" is rather abrupt but he's usually attacking of our non-believing members... I'm not sure the most off putting people are the ones that are atheists... I find the ones I call "the apologists" and "the self appointed experts" far more abrasive to new members--particularly non-believing new members who could really use a friendly forum to mingle in. Believers have a whole world of comaderie-ship and judging of others-- maybe it's okay for them to see how the other half lives. There are members that I find annoying and abrasive and whom I worry may frighten off new members-- but they aren't the overt atheists... they seem to have other issues. And our theists like DOC and T'ai are very offensive to people new and old. JREF is not an atheist organization--but the majority of members are atheistic or don't believe in any kind of personal god. But there are threads where that is never mentioned.

I think that when you see a new member you like you ought to welcome them, and give them a clue if you see them haggling with a particularly obnoxious forum member.

 

[-Fran-]

I understand that we need to be able to speak freely, but you have to admit, some users are pretty heavy handed and a lot of threads end up in sissy slapfights.

Yeah, absolutely! I have already admitted, or really... I have never denied that things can't be better, and that there isn't some people around here that sometimes, or often are harsh, unnessecarily confrontational, or even rude and hostile. I even admitted that I, myself, have a few times lost it and been rude to people (I said quite a nasty thing to T'ai Chi the other week that I do regret a bit). And sure some threads just go down the drain totally. But I do not really see that there is more of this here than in any other forums on the Internet. I don't think the JREF forum is particularly infamous on the net for being a particularly unfriendly and hostile place.

Would you also agree that some actually are a bit too thin-skinned, and that some calls everything unfriendly and hostile that doesn't at once agree with all they say? That some have just misunderstood this place, and it is more a case of interpreting something as unfriendly that was really them expecting something completely else? Some forums on the net are hug-parties between people that all have the same attitude. The diversity of people, and thoughts around here alone can "shock" some a bit, I guess.

ETA:
I've been in a few fandom forums... you wanna talk bullying, sissy fights, hostility to new members and confrontational people? Oh my JREF is a haven of polite discussion in comparison.