Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[The Atheist]

Goodness, there's 7 new pages here since I last looked. Guess I'll catch up later.

Don't bother, you've said everything in the couple of posts prior.

Great stuff.

 

[schlitt]

We all have our woo...

I find this centiment interesting.

While most likely true this to me is concerning, and the idea that "skeptics", should be able to have varying beliefs does not ring true with the idea of skepticism to me.

So speaking idealistically for a minute:

Skepticism is not a belief, it is more of a method for reaching a true conclusion, based upon logic, reasoning and evidence.

Any given propostion is either, correct, wrong, or unknown.

Using an unbiased and properly conducted skeptical process, shouldn't one of these three options be found definitively for any proposition?

Saying, "I am skeptical of psychics, but i do believe in bigfoot", would show the same rigour of examination has not been applied with the bigfoot proposition.

Using an unbiased skeptical examination of bigfoot and psychics should always result in the same conclusion for everybody.
The same goes for religions and God.

However what throws a spanner into the works for the above two statements is; conclusions will vary along with the the information being scrutinized, which could account for variable beliefs even when an unbiased skeptical examination has taken place.

Is the difference between theistic skeptics and atheist skeptics the decision to believe once the proposition has been placed in the "unknown" category?

Are theists not applying the skeptical process properly and having their conclusions corrupted by bias or faulty reasoning?

Are atheists not applying the skeptical process properly and having their conclusions corrupted by bias or faulty reasoning?

There should be one solid answer to the god proposition, and the purpose of skepticism should be to definitively find this.

Believing in god and being able to apply skeptical methodology could either be mutually exclusive or not. It depends on what the truth of the god proposition is.

However, even if it were mutually exlusive, it may only apply to the examination of god for the person involved, as they may have conducted skeptical reasoning flawlessly in other matters.

So... should skeptics be unanimously atheist?

Yes, if there are no gods.
No, if there is gods.

 

[Big Les]

Personally, I think it's morally wrong to believe in something just because you want to.

You know I don't understand it and think it inconsistent, but I wouldn't go as far as to say it's wrong. In fact I'm not clear on how it can be. I think if we take that position on beliefs that aren't pushed on anyone, don't cause claims about the real world to be made, and don't adversely influence a person's thought processes otherwise, well, then we're approaching bigotry, aren't we?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

You know I don't understand it and think it inconsistent, but I wouldn't go as far as to say it's wrong. In fact I'm not clear on how it can be. I think if we take that position on beliefs that aren't pushed on anyone, don't cause claims about the real world to be made, and don't adversely influence a person's thought processes otherwise, well, then we're approaching bigotry, aren't we?

As avoiding truth and facts constitutes a retreat from reality, and we are mutually dependent people living in a world without any gods or superheroes to solve our problems, I consider rejecting reality in favor of superstition to be a morally reprehensible rejection of all the progress and benefits we have derived from centuries of learning and science. Maxwell's equations have given us more than any messiah or pontiff ever will. Norman Borlaug put more mercy and compassion into single grain of enhanced wheat than exists in all the churches in all the world. I do not approve of forcing anyone to become a skeptic, but I'll be hanged if I'm going to respect backsliding into superstition.

 

[-Fran-]

Just as a side note. Not long after I first joined here, there was a similar discussion about the members who used to be followers of Sylvia Browne. Miss Anthrope started a thread asking if the ex-followers of SB still held other similar beliefs even if they had now discarded Sylvia. And the same sort of more or less open suggestions came up, that we should not risk scaring these people off by questioning them such, because they are needed in the fight against Sylvia and her ilk. I remember Miss A, saying something like that it wasn't her intention but that she had wondered and now she asked. I remember piping up and saying, then too, that I thought there isn't much use with the forum if we can not ask such questions.

I just thought that thread a good parallell to this one.

Here's the link, btw:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84753

 

[Belz...]

Believing in god and being able to apply skeptical methodology could either be mutually exclusive or not. It depends on what the truth of the god proposition is.

Few people are as anti-woo or anti-religion as I am, but I disagree.

As I said, not everybody is skeptical of everything, and not everybody is "equipped" to know the truth value of every statement.

Besides, "belief" is not the same as "fanatacism". I know of a few Christians, for example, who know that there is no proof for the existence of their god, and would not claim that, either.

I believe, say, that the human species will get better in the future; not necessarily à la Star Trek, but still. There is no evidence that this will happen. Would this make me a woo ? Am I unskeptical, now ?

 

[schlitt]

Few people are as anti-woo or anti-religion as I am, but I disagree.

As I said, not everybody is skeptical of everything, and not everybody is "equipped" to know the truth value of every statement.

Besides, "belief" is not the same as "fanatacism". I know of a few Christians, for example, who know that there is no proof for the existence of their god, and would not claim that, either.

I believe, say, that the human species will get better in the future; not necessarily à la Star Trek, but still. There is no evidence that this will happen. Would this make me a woo ? Am I unskeptical, now ?

Whether or not you are skeptical depends on the procedure of how you reach your conclusions.

Given the fact that a conclusion is either correct or incorrect, it would be hoped that applying a skeptical methodology would result in forming the correct conclusion.

Let me try illustrate what i meant with the statement you have quoted:

For the following example let's presume god does not exist.

If someone were to look at the information available to them, and reach the conclusion that god does exist - they have arrived at a faulty conclusion - would you consider the methodology they used to reach their conclusion sound skeptical methodology?
No, because they have arrived at the wrong conclusion.
Therefore they have not been truly skeptical because their analysis has been faulty.

However, if god does exist, it is a different story, because they have reached the correct conclusion. Which is what skepticism is all about.

So you have people claiming to use the same methodology, but reaching different conclusions, one side is correct, one isn't. Is the side that is incorrect using the methodology correctly?

 

[articulett]

Just as a side note. Not long after I first joined here, there was a similar discussion about the members who used to be followers of Sylvia Browne. Miss Anthrope started a thread asking if the ex-followers of SB still held other similar beliefs even if they had now discarded Sylvia. And the same sort of more or less open suggestions came up, that we should not risk scaring these people off by questioning them such, because they are needed in the fight against Sylvia and her ilk. I remember Miss A, saying something like that it wasn't her intention but that she had wondered and now she asked. I remember piping up and saying, then too, that I thought there isn't much use with the forum if we can not ask such questions.

I just thought that thread a good parallell to this one.

Here's the link, btw:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84753

I think I agree with this. I mean it makes sense to ask people to go a little softer on some people or to be aware of their approach, I suppose-- but no one is really in a position to tell whether it's having a negative or positive impact. It is just words. And maybe people should learn not to put out notions for scrutiny on a skeptics forum if they don't want to hear the opinions of others on the topic. Why would someone care if I or anyone else thinks that it's not skeptical to believe in a god?-- that's what I want to know. Why would this matter. Aren't these people often the same ones trying to tell me that atheism isn't rational or that theism is as rational as atheism? That is an opinion I certainly don't share, and I'm more than glad to present evidence as to why.

I want people to use facts and evidence to support their claims-- not just expect deference or coddling because "faith is good" or because it's "arrogant to question" god. I understand the risks of frightening people away... but maybe some will stick around and read before posting their opinions again... Why would anyone's opinion about who should and shouldn't label themselves a skeptic matter? Unless someone was afraid of what those allegations might mean. If you say that someone isn't being skeptical, and they are... why would such an opinion matter? It would only matter if they were trying to protect themselves from finding out they aren't as skeptical as they thought, right? When theists say that it takes "more faith" to be an atheists-- I'm not offended-- I'm eager to show them why this is a silly notion inserted directly in their head by some theist. Sure, I might sound abrasive-- but the allegation itself is offensive, insincere, and manipulative-- and so... old and worn.

I want this forum to be a place where skeptics can speak freely. Refusing to respect beliefs is not the same as disrespecting believers-- though many have been indoctrinated to think so. I don't care what people call themselves-- I just want to know what is true-- and I want to share and explore that truth and understand it further. You can call yourself whatever you want-- but if you express an "opinion" on a skeptics forum, you are inviting others to express their opinions of your opinion. I don't see any rational or skeptical reasons for believing in a god. But I don't think beliefs (like preferences and opinions) are necessarily subject to logic.

There are facts that are true for everybody no matter what they believe-- and there's everything else. I like to delineate the difference.

 

[-Fran-]

I think I agree with this. I mean it makes sense to ask people to go a little softer on some people or to be aware of their approach, I suppose-- but no one is really in a position to tell whether it's having a negative or positive impact. It is just words.

Yes, as far as I remember (I haven't read the thread again, and it was a while ago) none of the ex-followers of SB actually seemed to mind Miss A's question, it was others who raised the concern, if I recall correctly.

--------
ETA:
I skimmed the first page only a bit. It seems one person was offended but sent a private message to Miss A about it only. And someone actually asked her not to ask these questions. One ex-believer said he/she actually joined the forum because of what Miss A said. It goes to show that you CAN actually not predict that asking certain things will drive people away, it may actually pull a few in as well.
--------

I agree with you that one shouldn't stalk people with it, or be overly confrontational with questions. But starting a thread with an honest and straightforward question, even if it may be a tough one, I can't see anyhing wrong with. Everyone is free to ignore it. The question is an open one and not directed to a certain individual who is put on a spot. It's easy to not have to defend yourself-just ignore the thread! It's not like anyone would follow people around the forum and keep asking and goading, as in seeking all ex-SB-followers out in every thread and ask them over and over again. You open your own thread, the questions is out there - answer it or not. That's how I see it And I will certainly respect both those who chose to answer, and those who chose not to!

And maybe people should learn not to put out notions for scrutiny on a skeptics forum if they don't want to hear the opinions of others on the topic. Why would someone care if I or anyone else thinks that it's not skeptical to believe in a god?-- that's what I want to know. Why would this matter. Aren't these people often the same ones trying to tell me that atheism isn't rational or that theism is as rational as atheism? That is an opinion I certainly don't share, and I'm more than glad to present evidence as to why.

Exactly! And it seems to me that the "myth" here is that only people with beliefs can be offended, atheists have "nothing that can be offended". Only because we might be the majority on this particular forum, it isn't true that we are never criticised around here as well, and not only by the nutty woos who comes along.

I want people to use facts and evidence to support their claims-- not just expect deference or coddling because "faith is good" or because it's "arrogant to question" god. I understand the risks of frightening people away...

Yeah, and I sure don't want that people are scared off. But if we're treading too lightly at the risk of that, the whole forum will eventually lose its edge. When I told my friend I had joined a skeptic forum, she said "But, isn't that boring? I mean, there can't be much of discussion going on there if you all think and feel exactly the same about everything?" I told her that "if you only knew... " I wouldn't want the JREF forum to be like that, better the risk of some people not liking it here, and better the risks of conflicts - it doesn't mean you would actually LOOK for conflict or knowingly try to create it.

but maybe some will stick around and read before posting their opinions again... Why would anyone's opinion about who should and shouldn't label themselves a skeptic matter? Unless someone was afraid of what those allegations might mean.

Yes, and it is here I think they misunderstand. What we think doesn't really matter much in practicality. It is highly unlikely that the atheists would gang up on the theists, for example, and actively drive them out just because we ask uncomfortable questions, it isn't the next step.

If you say that someone isn't being skeptical, and they are... why would such an opinion matter? It would only matter if they were trying to protect themselves from finding out they aren't as skeptical as they thought, right?

Yes, it does seem a bit defensive.

When theists say that it takes "more faith" to be an atheists-- I'm not offended-- I'm eager to show them why this is a silly notion inserted directly in their head by some theist. Sure, I might sound abrasive-- but the allegation itself is offensive, insincere, and manipulative-- and so... old and worn.

Yes, and I am fully aware that I must expect and deal with such misconceptions about my atheism. I never thought I would get by here totally without being questioned about stuff. When or if I can't handle that anymore, then it's me - not the forum.

I want this forum to be a place where skeptics can speak freely. Refusing to respect beliefs is not the same as disrespecting believers-- though many have been indoctrinated to think so.

Yes, I do think for some it is very hard to not take things personally. I can really understand that by all means.

I don't care what people call themselves-- I just want to know what is true-- and I want to share and explore that truth and understand it further. You can call yourself whatever you want--

Absolutely. It doesn't bother me the least, personally.

but if you express an "opinion" on a skeptics forum, you are inviting others to express their opinions of your opinion.

Yes, and if you have once stated a belief, or an atheism, you can never expect there to never again be any questions about it. You can make clear that you never want to discuss it, but can't expect others not to.

I don't see any rational or skeptical reasons for believing in a god. But I don't think beliefs (like preferences and opinions) are necessarily subject to logic.

There are facts that are true for everybody no matter what they believe-- and there's everything else. I like to delineate the difference.

I agree.

 

[Lonewulf]

I believe, say, that the human species will get better in the future; not necessarily à la Star Trek, but still. There is no evidence that this will happen. Would this make me a woo ? Am I unskeptical, now ?

The difference, of course, being that people actually exist, and evidence has shown that there can be a better lifestyle amongst humans. Today is not equivalent to the 1800s, for instance.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....Besides, "belief" is not the same as "fanatacism". I know of a few Christians, for example, who know that there is no proof for the existence of their god, and would not claim that, either......

So they claim there is no proof out of one side of their mouth and claim some form of internal proof to themselves out of the other side.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I've pondered the claim we exclude a lot of people from the circle by not allowing that exception for people's religious beliefs. It offends people.

But in the end I decided it was too disingenuous to ignore the elephant in the room. I see skeptics claim their religious beliefs are an acceptable exception, faith is different from science, you can believe and have this faith and still have science. And then I look at how absolutely ludicrous the Bible based religions are. Christianity is not different qualitatively from any other mythical god belief. It is so obvious to a critical thinker the concept expressed in those famous atheist quotes, (paraphrased) "When you understand why you dismiss all other gods, you'll understand why I dismiss yours", and, "I propose you are an atheist as well, I just believe in one less god than you do."

How can any true critical thinker maintain that one glaring blindspot?

 

[-Fran-]

I've pondered the claim we exclude a lot of people from the circle by not allowing that exception for people's religious beliefs. It offends people.

But in the end I decided it was too disingenuous to ignore the elephant in the room. I see skeptics claim their religious beliefs are an acceptable exception, faith is different from science, you can believe and have this faith and still have science. And then I look at how absolutely ludicrous the Bible based religions are. Christianity is not different qualitatively from any other mythical god belief. It is so obvious to a critical thinker the concept expressed in those famous atheist quotes, (paraphrased) "When you understand why you dismiss all other gods, you'll understand why I dismiss yours", and, "I propose you are an atheist as well, I just believe in one less god than you do."

How can any true critical thinker maintain that one glaring blindspot?

I agree... and then, they actually aren't even excluded!!

 

[CFLarsen]

Take ghosts for example. You can say science isn't concerned with the supernatural, or you can say there is a better explanation for that variable electromagnetic reading on your silly ghost detector. Likewise you can say science doesn't concern itself with the untestable, therefore it's just peachy to have a god belief and use science for evaluating everything else.

It sounds like a cop out which allows the scientist not to have to confront the god believer. Or, it sounds like a blind spot, allowing the scientist to hold onto one superstition, his binky he is not yet ready to let go of. The alternative is to look at the question scientifically, just as one does with astrology and homeopathy and whatever other 'supernatural' phenomenon one used science to debunk. Using science we evaluate the evidence. The Bible is no different from the oral traditions of the Hopi Indians. Coyote didn't steal fire from heaven, Pele isn't doing battle with her brother the sea and it isn't turtles all the way down.

There's only questionable corroborating evidence Jesus was an actual person and there's a lot of evidence the Jesus story is a fable. We know the Earth is not 6,000 years old, we know the Creation story is a myth. Zeus isn't in charge of lightning bolts, and nothing happens to people when they are prayed for. How can you call Zeus a myth, see the Greek gods as myths originated as human generated folk tales, then turn around and ignore the fact the evidence clearly shows the Bible is no different?

What is the scientist going to confront the god believer with?

And it's Thor who is in charge of lightning bolts.

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.

No, it's not being skeptical to presume that things don't exist until they have been proven to do so. The skeptical thing is to say that we don't know either way until evidence comes in, whatever it may show.

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--

Which religious believer here claim that their unverified-and-unverifiable god is equally rational?

Yes, that's true. But people who think of themselves as sceptics tend to re-assess their own beliefs and positions based upon evidence. Oughtn't we to be critical of untestable beliefs too? For me, that translates to - there is no evidence, therefore no reason to believe in god.

Of course we should be critical of untestable beliefs - and we certainly are. But there's not a lot we can do about it, because there are no verifiable claims made.

This only applies if you see scepticism as always adopting a default position of disbelief without satisfactory evidence, which is certainly how I see it, but I could be wrong.

You are.

What I'm trying to say is that if the JREF organisation meant the forum to have exactly the same cause as the organisation I would have thought it would be a forum for actual JREF members only. A free forum MUST include even the T'ai Chis in the WE *shudder*

A forum such as this must certainly include even the T'ai Chis (although I wouldn't include him in the "we, skeptics").

The T'ai Chis of this world serve as a constant reminder of just how dangerous false beliefs are - and how dangerous those are who know they preach falsehoods.

I don't follow.

Does empirical skepticism involve evaluating ideas based on evidence? Yes.

Does there exist the slimmest iota of evidence for the existence of god? No.

Ergo, belief in god is unskeptical.

Belief in a testable, verifiable god is unskeptical.

We have to include that qualifier, people.

There's a subtle but important difference there that I think cuts to the heart of the misunderstanding here - belief in god is unsceptical, but holding that position does not invalidate one's scepticism about everything else, in particular claims made about the observable world.

I just don't see why a sceptic of tangible things would be unsceptical about an intangible god.

Because it isn't unskeptical to believe that your mother loves you.

 

[Darat]

I've pondered the claim we exclude a lot of people from the circle by not allowing that exception for people's religious beliefs. It offends people.

But in the end I decided it was too disingenuous to ignore the elephant in the room. I see skeptics claim their religious beliefs are an acceptable exception, faith is different from science, you can believe and have this faith and still have science. And then I look at how absolutely ludicrous the Bible based religions are. Christianity is not different qualitatively from any other mythical god belief. It is so obvious to a critical thinker the concept expressed in those famous atheist quotes, (paraphrased) "When you understand why you dismiss all other gods, you'll understand why I dismiss yours", and, "I propose you are an atheist as well, I just believe in one less god than you do."

How can any true critical thinker maintain that one glaring blindspot?

But your objections to a "Christian sceptic" relies on a certain definition of a Christian. In the UK we had a CofE Bishop saying a Christian didn't have to believe in the Virgin birth, the miracles in the Bible and so on all of which show to me quite a sceptical approach to his own beliefs. Yes this may be a minority view but if we want to be accurate in what we say about people we have to try and avoid generalities that in the end obscure the facts.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What is the scientist going to confront the god believer with?

Well that depends on the situation. If there is a discussion such as this one, I might want to confront the hypocrisy. If it is in front of the church the skeptic with a blind spot is attending, I'm certainly not advocating some Fred Phelps-like protest.

And it's Thor who is in charge of lightning bolts.

So was Zeus.

The Cies and E-Cats were held in Tartarus where Cronus had imprisoned them, and they were so grateful to be freed that they gave Zeus thunder and lightning as a reward for releasing them....

No, it's not being skeptical to presume that things don't exist until they have been proven to do so. The skeptical thing is to say that we don't know either way until evidence comes in, whatever it may show.

You are completely ignoring what I posted. The evidence is in. There is overwhelming evidence that god beliefs are myths. Are you still waiting for the astrology evidence to come in? Are you waiting for the homeopathy evidence to come in? Waiting for that pink unicorn evidence?

As long as you recognize that there is no difference, I have no issue. But agnostics, including skeptics, don't recognize the equality of the possibilities of gods and invisible pink unicorns. They believe as you have posted here that we somehow don't know. Nonsense, the evidence is clear. If all the god beliefs people have are clearly not rooted in actual encounters with gods, if there is no evidence gods interact with the Universe (such as answering prayers), then why are gods somehow "not disproved" while invisible pink unicorns are easily dismissed?

Which religious believer here claim that their unverified-and-unverifiable god is equally rational?

This is a meaningless statement. The reason the god is unverifiable is there is no god. Once you claim a god does anything, that becomes testable. Only a god which doesn't interact with the Universe or covers his tracks is untestable. And then you have the equivalent of an invisible pink unicorn.

Of course we should be critical of untestable beliefs - and we certainly are. But there's not a lot we can do about it, because there are no verifiable claims made.

Really? God loves you, answers your prayers, brings hurricanes upon gay people and cities which accept them, ... those certainly seem verifiable to me.

Belief in a testable, verifiable god is unskeptical.

We have to include that qualifier, people.

So if you only believe in the god who isn't there you are still a skeptic? This is where you fall into the trap I keep talking about. You maintain the idea one has this 'faith based belief' and singles out certain religious beliefs as somehow outside the realm of science. And do remember we are only talking about certain religious beliefs, Pele and Zeus are not included, they aren't even called religions, they are called myths. What is it about certain god beliefs that elevate those beliefs to the status of "we don't know" yet does not elevate other god beliefs to the same status?

And taking the next logical step, what is it about certain god beliefs that elevate those beliefs to the status of "we don't know" yet does not elevate other woo beliefs to the same status?

Because it isn't unskeptical to believe that your mother loves you.

There's a comparison here, Claus, but not the one you are using. Love can be tested, measured, and explained in a number of different ways. I can look at the biology, the neurochemistry, the sociology and/or the psychology involved. Love is explainable and testable predictions can be made. It is a real thing.

Religious beliefs are the same. They can be looked at through biology, maybe neurochemistry, certainly through psychology and sociology. You can make testable predictions such as, modern marketing methods are likely to increase church attendance, or, beliefs formed in childhood are difficult to change later. But you cannot find evidence god beliefs have anything to do with actual gods. Beliefs are real, gods are not.

 

[Big Les]

No, it's not being skeptical to presume that things don't exist until they have been proven to do so. The skeptical thing is to say that we don't know either way until evidence comes in, whatever it may show.

I realise that this is...idealistically desirable for scepticism in what you could argue is its purest form. But it's just not very practical. You would need to assign just as much non-committal scepticism to literally any concept either or any of us could give shape to with words, images, or even keep inside our own heads. The Undetectable Fifth Dimensional Stealth Badger I've just dreamed up is in every way as valid an idea as this version of god is, and people could start believing in it to exactly the same extent.

So, whilst I may not be being 100% sceptical about this notion of god by deciding that it's untrue unless some evidence is somehow produced (after all, how do you know that evidence will never be forthcoming?), neither are they by actively believing in it. And to me, that makes less sense and is less rational.

Which religious believer here claim that their unverified-and-unverifiable god is equally rational?

I'll chime in again - they didn't claim that. In fact, they've been conspicuous by their absence since the poo hit the fan back on page 2. We're left with you. I and other questioning posters are saying that it's not rational.

Of course we should be critical of untestable beliefs - and we certainly are. But there's not a lot we can do about it, because there are no verifiable claims made.

There isn't, you're quite right. I'm not proposing that we do anything about it, just trying to get my head around the apparent inconsistency.

You are.

Then show me why.

Belief in a testable, verifiable god is unskeptical.

So is belief in an untestable one, because you've called it one way or the other. I realise that makes me, who's called it as untrue, also unsceptical, but I cannot see that it's to the same degree (on this issue alone I hasten to add). To say that there's no evidence, there's no prospect of evidence, and the very idea has come from ready-debunked and testable claims, therefore I will choose to disbelieve until and unless some evidence arrives, is surely more rational, and arguably more sceptical, than to simply choose to believe on no basis whatsoever.

Because it isn't unskeptical to believe that your mother loves you.

We've been through this already. That analogy is flawed because although it references intangible emotions, we absolutely can test for it. We can observe behaviour over a period of years, measure emotional responses etc. In a consequence free world, we could place me in front of a train (some might wish to) and observe my mother try everything in her power to save me at the cost of her own life. By any commonly accepted definition, that would demonstrate an aspect of love. The same cannot apply to this scepto-god.

If you are referring to just the imagined idea of "love" that people use to describe these bonds and actions, then my answer is even easier - there is no "love", just evolutionary imperatives to provide cohesion to a family unit.

Unlike a personal notion of god however, "love" as defined by social bonds between real, living people, matters in the real world and is entirely rational. The irrational "dress-up" that we give it in our minds is indeed comparable with "god", but is still more rational by my estimation, because it applies to real people, and for many, strengthens those very real and important bonds. From where I'm sitting, the imagined "god" performs no function beyond emotional comfort. Which is fine, it's just surprising to me that a sceptic would feel comfortable compartmentalising in this way. And if they know it's just for comfort and has no other function, meaning, or manifestation, I equally fail to understand how they can continue to hold that belief. For those with limited critical thinking abilities, this self-delusion makes perfect sense. For people who are pragmatically sceptical about real-world matters, it makes less sense.

 

[CFLarsen]

Well that depends on the situation. If there is a discussion such as this one, I might want to confront the hypocrisy. If it is in front of the church the skeptic with a blind spot is attending, I'm certainly not advocating some Fred Phelps-like protest.

So was Zeus.

No, no. It's Thor.

You are completely ignoring what I posted. The evidence is in. There is overwhelming evidence that god beliefs are myths. Are you still waiting for the astrology evidence to come in? Are you waiting for the homeopathy evidence to come in? Waiting for that pink unicorn evidence?

You misunderstand. I am not saying that we cannot reach a provisional conclusion based on the evidence.

As long as you recognize that there is no difference, I have no issue. But agnostics, including skeptics, don't recognize the equality of the possibilities of gods and invisible pink unicorns. They believe as you have posted here that we somehow don't know. Nonsense, the evidence is clear. If all the god beliefs people have are clearly not rooted in actual encounters with gods, if there is no evidence gods interact with the Universe (such as answering prayers), then why are gods somehow "not disproved" while invisible pink unicorns are easily dismissed?

Because you can't disprove gods, exactly the same way you can't disprove invisible pink unicorns.

You are falling into the same trap as those who once claimed that rocks couldn't fall from the sky. Your mind is closed to the possibility of gods and unicorns.

This is a meaningless statement. The reason the god is unverifiable is there is no god. Once you claim a god does anything, that becomes testable. Only a god which doesn't interact with the Universe or covers his tracks is untestable. And then you have the equivalent of an invisible pink unicorn.

If your criticism has to have any value, you have to point to some concrete example of a believer in god who claim that their unverified-and-unverifiable god is equally rational. Otherwise, you are simply erecting a strawman.

Really? God loves you, answers your prayers, brings hurricanes upon gay people and cities which accept them, ... those certainly seem verifiable to me.

"God loves you" is verifiable? How so?

So if you only believe in the god who isn't there you are still a skeptic? This is where you fall into the trap I keep talking about. You maintain the idea one has this 'faith based belief' and singles out certain religious beliefs as somehow outside the realm of science. And do remember we are only talking about certain religious beliefs, Pele and Zeus are not included, they aren't even called religions, they are called myths. What is it about certain god beliefs that elevate those beliefs to the status of "we don't know" yet does not elevate other god beliefs to the same status?

Is belief in Thor not a religion?

And taking the next logical step, what is it about certain god beliefs that elevate those beliefs to the status of "we don't know" yet does not elevate other woo beliefs to the same status?

What other woo beliefs?

There's a comparison here, Claus, but not the one you are using. Love can be tested, measured, and explained in a number of different ways. I can look at the biology, the neurochemistry, the sociology and/or the psychology involved. Love is explainable and testable predictions can be made. It is a real thing.

Religious beliefs are the same. They can be looked at through biology, maybe neurochemistry, certainly through psychology and sociology. You can make testable predictions such as, modern marketing methods are likely to increase church attendance, or, beliefs formed in childhood are difficult to change later. But you cannot find evidence god beliefs have anything to do with actual gods. Beliefs are real, gods are not.

How do you tell if a mother loves her child? Can a mother abstain from hugging her child and still love it?

I realise that this is...idealistically desirable for scepticism in what you could argue is its purest form. But it's just not very practical. You would need to assign just as much non-committal scepticism to literally any concept either or any of us could give shape to with words, images, or even keep inside our own heads. The Undetectable Fifth Dimensional Stealth Badger I've just dreamed up is in every way as valid an idea as this version of god is, and people could start believing in it to exactly the same extent.

I'm not saying otherwise.

So, whilst I may not be being 100% sceptical about this notion of god by deciding that it's untrue unless some evidence is somehow produced (after all, how do you know that evidence will never be forthcoming?)

Have I said it will never be forthcoming? I have said the exact opposite.

neither are they by actively believing in it. And to me, that makes less sense and is less rational.

That's what you don't get: Why do you expect an irrational belief to be rational?

I'll chime in again - they didn't claim that. In fact, they've been conspicuous by their absence since the poo hit the fan back on page 2.

Who are "they"?

We're left with you. I and other questioning posters are saying that it's not rational.

Are they saying it is rational?

There isn't, you're quite right. I'm not proposing that we do anything about it, just trying to get my head around the apparent inconsistency.

Try to understand that you can't apply rationality to irrational beliefs.

Then show me why.

I have, with the Contact example. Also, see my reply to skeptigirl.

So is belief in an untestable one, because you've called it one way or the other. I realise that makes me, who's called it as untrue, also unsceptical, but I cannot see that it's to the same degree (on this issue alone I hasten to add). To say that there's no evidence, there's no prospect of evidence, and the very idea has come from ready-debunked and testable claims, therefore I will choose to disbelieve until and unless some evidence arrives, is surely more rational, and arguably more sceptical, than to simply choose to believe on no basis whatsoever.

What is the difference in someone who believes in something he doesn't claim evidence of, and someone who disbelieves in something he doesn't claim evidence of?

We've been through this already. That analogy is flawed because although it references intangible emotions, we absolutely can test for it. We can observe behaviour over a period of years, measure emotional responses etc. In a consequence free world, we could place me in front of a train (some might wish to) and observe my mother try everything in her power to save me at the cost of her own life. By any commonly accepted definition, that would demonstrate an aspect of love. The same cannot apply to this scepto-god.

If you are referring to just the imagined idea of "love" that people use to describe these bonds and actions, then my answer is even easier - there is no "love", just evolutionary imperatives to provide cohesion to a family unit.

Unlike a personal notion of god however, "love" as defined by social bonds between real, living people, matters in the real world and is entirely rational. The irrational "dress-up" that we give it in our minds is indeed comparable with "god", but is still more rational by my estimation, because it applies to real people, and for many, strengthens those very real and important bonds. From where I'm sitting, the imagined "god" performs no function beyond emotional comfort. Which is fine, it's just surprising to me that a sceptic would feel comfortable compartmentalising in this way. And if they know it's just for comfort and has no other function, meaning, or manifestation, I equally fail to understand how they can continue to hold that belief. For those with limited critical thinking abilities, this self-delusion makes perfect sense. For people who are pragmatically sceptical about real-world matters, it makes less sense.

Have you read "Contact"? Not just seen the movie, but read the book?

 

[Belz...]

The difference, of course, being that people actually exist, and evidence has shown that there can be a better lifestyle amongst humans. Today is not equivalent to the 1800s, for instance.

I wasn't talking about technological advancement, though. Psychological, instead.

So they claim there is no proof out of one side of their mouth and claim some form of internal proof to themselves out of the other side.

They're not claiming any form of proof. Faith, and all that.

If we try to apply too strict a definition of "skeptic", then nobody's a skeptic. I do agree, however, that religious beliefs are not shielded from skeptical inquiry.

ETA: "You're not a real skeptic" reminds me of a particular fallacy...

 

[Dancing David]

On the basis of personal subjective experiences and/or the basis of testimony from others regarding personal subjective experiences.

On what basis do you believe in other intangibles - like justice or free will? Do they exist? How do you know? Can you objectively measure them? Or do you depend on your own experiences and those of other people to figure out what they are and whether you believe such things exist.

They are words or semantic construct. they have no meaning outside of a referent.

They can only be defined through observation.