Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

Status
Not open for further replies.
-Fran- said:
Also, it is a very big difference in how you view your own "blind spots". A skeptic may not always be aware they have one, but when they do become aware of one they try to look honestly at it, and when presented with evidence against it, they see it for what it is, and discard it. The theist skeptics obviously are not prepared to do this, because then they would have already
Click to expand...

This, we can also agree on.

Everybody agrees! Now we're so happy, we do the dance of joy!

 
Sheesh, how old are you anyway ? ;)

Well, that's what happens when you had your childhood in the 80s. Nobody understands the references. And I thought I was being clever.

That was a sit-com called "Perfect Strangers".

ETA: 1970 ??? Did you live in a cardboard box in Sweden for 20 years ??? :D (nice hair, by the way)
 
Last edited:
Sure we all have blindspots... I became a skeptic because I don't want to be fooled by such things... I want to understand the way I am illogical and correct it... I want the information that I expresses examine and honed and pounded for truth... that's what science is about too. There's lots of blindspots-- but only one reality-- one truth-that-is-the-same-for-everybody. The tools of skepticism are the best means of finding that truth. Faith and feelings are not good ways of finding truths-- they might be useful for all sorts of things--they are not useful for finding out objective information-- only subjective information. Belief in a god is not a means of finding out whether a god exists. It's a way of using confirmation bias to tell yourself it does. It doesn't make your god true. I'm not interested in any gods until someone can can give me a reason why I should believe a god is more real than psychic powers.
 
Belz... said:
Sheesh, how old are you anyway ? ;)

Well, that's what happens when you had your childhood in the 80s. Nobody understands the references. And I thought I was being clever.
Click to expand...

Hee, I'm 37, so, yeah, had my teens in the 80s, though I'm trying to forget as much as I can about it :D

Belz... said:
That was a sit-com called "Perfect Strangers".
Click to expand...

Never heard of it :)

Belz... said:
ETA: 1970 ??? Did you live in a cardboard box in Sweden for 20 years ??? :D
Click to expand...

(I see you got my age all by yourself :))

Not far from it, not far from it ;) We only had two channels and one of them showed the Cosby Show, yeah... that was pretty much it for the 80s in Sweden :D
 
Last edited:
articulett said:
Sure we all have blindspots... I became a skeptic because I don't want to be fooled by such things... I want to understand the way I am illogical and correct it... I want the information that I expresses examine and honed and pounded for truth... that's what science is about too. There's lots of blindspots-- but only one reality-- one truth-that-is-the-same-for-everybody. The tools of skepticism are the best means of finding that truth. Faith and feelings are not good ways of finding truths-- they might be useful for all sorts of things--they are not useful for finding out objective information-- only subjective information. Belief in a god is not a means of finding out whether a god exists. It's a way of using confirmation bias to tell yourself it does. It doesn't make your god true. I'm not interested in any gods until someone can can give me a reason why I should believe a god is more real than psychic powers.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. And as I see it, being a skeptic does not mean being a perfect thinking machine that never have blind spots, are mistaken, have flawed knowledge or are never guilty of biased thinking. No, we do all of these mistakes as well (and all the other usual ones, too).

It's not from a base of being a perfect skeptic that we look at others' beliefs and question them. It's from the base of promising to work on our mistakes and look at them honestly and change according to evidence that we question others beliefs. A skeptic questions others AND themselves as best they can. A theist skeptic, it seems to me, still questions others but have forgot to question themselves (or don't want to).
 
Last edited:
quote=Belz...;3181726]Huh ?[/quote]

I meant "MORE" hostile. You'd be hard pressed to find someone MORE hostile to faith than I am--not "less hostile"

I really need to proofread before I post. (I embarrass myself.)

(And I remember Balki)
 
articulett said:
This is sloppy theistic type thinking again. I think that we can all agree that there is one reality-- one truth that doesn't depend on whether people believe it or not. The story of how humans came to be is a single story. There is one truth. We can use the evidence to fill in the details as best we can, but iwe can't make up evidence if we actually want to understand the facts.
Click to expand...

Other than the "sloppy" bit, I'm with you here. Logically there is one truth.

articulett said:
A skeptic is aware of the ways people fool themselves. You can be aware of how Scientologists or various cults or Sylvia Groupies or Mormons or Jehovah Witnesses are lead astray. But you don't imagine the same for yourself in regards to your similar beliefs. That is what is nonskeptical!You know that it's very human to believe the stuff that people told you when you were growing up-- and to have feelings perceptions that are misleading when compared to reality or given perspective. But you don't consider that you may have been a victim of such when you make claims about a god and you are using confirmation bias when you conclude your god (however nebulously defined) is more likely to exist than Zeus.
Click to expand...

That is an assumption you're making about theists. It's not necessarily the case that a theist doesn't consider such things.

articulett said:
Unless God is a "feeling", Any claims about him are either "true" or "false". Either the god you believe in exists or doesn't except in your mind, correct? And we know that Zeus probably only existed in peoples' minds, right? We know that schizophrenic delusions only exist in peoples' minds. We know that Scientology is a human made religion. We know that humans have been detecting agency in things they don't understand for eons (storms are formed by angry gods) and then confirming that bias (our crops grew well because we sacrificed a virgin-- let's do two next time...)
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that I would say that such evidence against the existence of a god/gods is any stronger than saying "we know people from the beginning of civilization have worshipped gods" as evidence for a god/gods. Neither is much more than a small piece in a much larger jigsaw.

articulett said:
If your god is real-- then why are you a "whipping post" when you discuss him? When I talk about the facts of evolution-- the fact don't change just because my audience doesn't understand them. I don't feel like a whipping post because of their ignorance. I may work to help them understand, or I may decide it's not worth my time. But labeling yourself a whipping post is like labeling yourself a martyr-- you're insinuating there is something good about faith without showing what that something is... or why you came to believe in your particular brand. The facts about evolution don't change and I don't need others to believe or find that truth rational in order to not feel like a whipping post. I think theists use this "you guys are being mean" blather to keep their delusion alive for themselves... to make their god off limits for questioning. To make those who doubt their god feel bad just as their gurus taught them.
Click to expand...

"THREAD whipping post" - how quick would you be, for example, to take your evolution talk to a Young Earth Creationist meeting whether you believe yourself to be confident of the facts or not? The phrase wasn't intended to be about being some kind of martyr, but more speculation as to why theists weren't saying much in this thread.

articulett said:
There are facts and there are everything else-- feelings, beliefs, myths, illusions, etc. While I believe that you believe god exists. I see no more reason to believe that your god exists anymore than you believe that Zeus exists. Any facts you make about your god cannot be factual to anyone else until that god is proven to exist. Otherwise, it's like saying "engrams (Scientology entities) cause you to have a difficult life" unless you "clear" them. Not only is that NOT a rational claim for obvious reasons. It's the same kind of irrational claim as any made about a god for the same kinds of reasons. It's manipulative, assumes facts not in evidence, and is prone to confirmation bias-- it's also based on invisible, immeasurable entities that there is no reason to believe exist.
Click to expand...

I don't really find the "we're all atheists about most gods" logic particularly useful as it doesn't account for the possibility of those gods being being a particular culture's interpretation of the same god or gods or certain aspects of some kind of god. Theism in of itself is only making the claim of a belief that some kind of god exists. The nature of that god or gods is another matter.

It's up to you if you consider someone's theistic belief as a claim of some sort, and demand proof just as you could to a guy who believes in aliens because he met one. Both know they they are unlikely to be able to produce the evidence you demand for proof. That doesn't mean that their beliefs aren't based on facts, only that those facts are not repeatable or measurable in some way.

Any facts that someone makes about a god, even if that god had been proven to exist would be no more factual to someone else without producing evidence. I'm not entirely sure what your point is in this paragraph. It sounds like you're reacting to someone who's pushing their religion on you, not someone claiming to be convinced of something from their own experiences.

articulett said:
Your blind example is ridiculous... because things that you see have qualities that can be measured and explained by others. These qualities exist whether the blind person can understand them or whether you can convey that understanding. What you say can be corroborated because it has a basis in reality.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it appears ridiculous if you start with the hypothesis that no god exists. I have no idea how one would go about proving and explaining "blue" to someone to whom the concept has little meaning and who only was prepared to accept tangible or measurable evidence. Yet, from personal experience, a sighted person knows "blue" exists.

articulett said:
Even if you overheard something and couldn't prove it... the world is one in which those words were said... that would be a fact that no one can change even if you can't prove it. If one day you discover and audiotape happened to be running at that time, that conversation should be on it. That's the way reality works. Or perhaps you'd learn that you misheard things--because humans are readily prone to such errors in logic.
Click to expand...

That was pretty much my point there.

articulett said:
But facts are true whether people believe in them or not. That would be true of god as well... and zeus and pink unicorns and schizophrenic delusions and you and me and the spherical nature of the earth. You are confusing fact with opinions about facts. The facts about such things are the same. 2+2=4 no matter how much someone's subjective self tells them it isn't so.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, and the earth was (kind of) spherical with a circumference of (roughly) 40,000km before humans were in any position to measure such things. Just because it couldn't be measured didn't make it false.

I'm not aware I was confusing facts with opinions. Are you sure you're not confusing your opinion with what I was actually saying?

articulett said:
Skepticism is usually about using facts to develop opinions about facts. It seems to me that belief in a god is having an opinion that is not based on facts-- rather it's using a lack of facts to imply a murkiness where you insert some nebulous god claim.

Your belief about a god has no bearing on the fact as to whether that god exists. It also has no bearing on whether it's logical or rational to believe in your god. It's just a subjective feeling that benefits you or that you imagine benefits you. I'm not skeptical that you have such feelings-- I just don't think your feelings mean what you imagine them to mean. I see no valid reason for thinking your conclusions abut your god are any more likely to be true than the hijackers conclusion about theirs. I wish there were valid reasons. But believers never give any but they tend to be big on demanding respect from skeptics for their beliefs. So us nonbelievers are left in a world where all sorts of crazy people believe all sorts of irrational things for reasons they cannot explain even to themselves. And, because they believe that faith is good--they compete to be seen as more faithful-- which makes them the opposite of skeptical as far as I can see. If faith is belief without or despite evidence, skepticism is letting evidence lead you toward the truth.

So, per my way of thinking, when a skeptic believes in a god, he/she is clearly not applying their skepticism to that god-- they are not applying the same skepticism that they would to homeopathy or conspiracy theories or other religions or other woo-- and I'm always curious as to why-- though that question is ever avoided.
Click to expand...

I think you're working with an assumption that theists believe what they do based only on feelings and speculation. While such things can and probably usually do play a part in a theist's conclusion, they're by no means the only things a theist might base their conclusion on. A sceptical theist may well apply similar methods to their belief in a god as they might to any other of their beliefs. They are highly likely be sceptical to religions including their own, if they have something that can be classed as a religion.

Faith has more than one definition. A religious person often uses the word in a different way from just meaning "belief without evidence".

My intention was to try to answer questions on equating theism to scepticism, not to explain why I might believe what I do or to try to convince anyone to consider accepting the existence of a god.

I'm open to the possibility of the "blind spot" idea - as I said, we all have unproven beliefs. I'm also open to the idea that a sceptic should consider applying the same sceptical method to the method itself. After all, scepticism is very useful as a tool, but maybe not as a dogma?

articulett said:
Why should skeptics treat someones claims about their god any differently than we treat claims about Sylvia Browne's special powers? I just wish a theist would give a good solid answer to this question sometime.
Click to expand...

Personally, I've not advocated that you should, but one should bear in mind that another person's knowledge and experiences are different from one's own and perhaps not be too hasty to judge something as woo just because you aren't party to the evidence.
 
But they aren't party to the evidence either! There is no way of "knowing" that some invisible immeasurable entity exists. Nobody can know that. Everybody has to base in on some kind of subjective evidence... I hear the argument that lots of people have believed in gods-- but it makes no sense because Allah is not Xenu is not Zeus is not Shiva is not Ra is not Jesus... sure they are all the same when you want to make an argument from popularity... But humans have been believing in this stuff and searching for evidence for eons-- and still there is nothing. Compare that to DNA! Flying Machines! (airplanes.) To imagine there is something to it because many people have believed in gods is on par with imagining there is something to the earth being flat because many people believed as such. Sure they did... and they were wrong... and we know why they believed that and we know why they are wrong. We know why all the faith that the hijackers had in their Allah, doesn't make their Allah or any god more true. We know that they can use the "success" of 9-11 and their Quoran and the fact that the hijackers familys' have lucid dreams about their loved ones in paradise to confirm the truth of their belief. And yet, we understand that that does not make their belief more true. We can understand why people believe as they do. But that does not warrant calling their belief "rational" or their evidence "logical". Do you have evidence that is better than that for your beliefs? Does any theist? Are you asserting that your belief is more rational than theirs? Based on what? Is it more skeptical? Why?

Your "blue example" IS sloppy reasoning. Blue exists whether a blind person can understand it or not... if they had a spectrometer or another person present they could get the same response as to what color something was and whether it was blue. They might not understand it. They might not believe it. They might not "get it". But it doesn't change reality one iota. Blue is measurable. Your god-- like all gods, is not.- People don't mean the same thing when they say god-- there is no measuring device for any gods-- there is no "effect" that it can be shown to have. It is indistinguishable from the imaginary things you readily dismiss. Why are you skeptical of Allah? Or Astrology? And not equally skeptical about your god? If you are less skeptical about your god, I am presuming that it must be because you have better evidence for your god than the hijackers did for theirs... and better evidence than astrologist have for their beliefs. So what is that evidence? Remember--blue can be measured... you get corroborating agreement on what is and isn't blue. God doesn't fit in that category. God is in the same category as "demons". Do you believe in them? If not, why not? What makes you believe in one invisible immeasurable entity that lots of people have believed in without objective evidence and not another? If it's not feelings and confirmation bias and indoctrination--what else is it? Why should a more skeptical person not conclude that you are being as unskeptical about your god as Sylvia Browne's supporters are being about her abilities?

I am well aware that peoples judgments and knowledge are different than mine. That's why I am a skeptic. I am interested in the FACTS that are the same for everyone. No theist seems to give me any reason for finding their beliefs "rational"-- valuable-- able to illuminate the truth... real... When you beg and ask and look for evidence and you get the same old semantic games and nothingness and the proverbial "color to the blind man" silliness-then the rational conclusion I draw is that your god is the same as all the gods that you don't believe in-- it's the same as Zeus and astrology and so forth and you believe it for similar reasons. What other conclusion can be drawn? Am I supposed to conclude that maybe you have some access to some secret divine truth that I can't fathom? Is that what you imagine? God only "speaks" to you and those who can convince themselves he exists? Was your god speaking to the hijackers? What other rational conclusion is there to make when you tell me you believe in some invisible immeasurable divine source and I know that humans believe all sorts of things like this-- and they all offer the same kinds of arguments and "proof" --(e.g. "you can't prove love is real" argument)-- that is just evasive semantic crap. They can be used for any woo-- therefore, they can't be used to support your god or any other. These platitudes can't be used as evidence, because a schizophrenic can use the same platitudes as evidence to proffer the notion that you shouldn't be so dogmatic as to assume that the voices in their head aren't real. So why do you use them? I think it's because you are trying to convince yourself that your beliefs are rational.

I'm not being too hasty to judge. I've been waiting a lifetime for someone to give me good evidence that their heartfelt beliefs in invisible entities is based on something objective... any of them.... I want to know how they can believe in stuff that people so clearly are deceived about. How can they not wonder if their god is as illusory as Zeus? Are you imagining the pantheon of gods were based on some divine reality that is related to your god-- that those folks were "divinely inspired"-- or do you give more prosaic reasons for their belief.

I just feel like you are doing what all woo believers do-- you are giving tangential arguments that any woo can use and trying to make me feel bad and judgmental for pointing that out. Of course that convinces me that you, like they, are fooling yourself. If they had actual evidence wouldn't all skeptics be believers? Wouldn't there be one religion and we'd all be trying to hone whatever truths we could based on objective measurable evidence? I spent a lot of angst as a kid thinking souls were real and I needed to figure out the correct nebulous rubric, infallible leader, and god to believe in if I wanted to "live happily ever after". Turns out-- there's no evidence that souls even exist. Here I was worrying about eternal damnation, and the people who were telling me about it couldn't have KNOWN any more about life after death than I do. There is no good evidence to think anyone can experience anything without a living brain or that any god can exist-- much less that you or anyone else have tapped into his divine truthiness.

I suspect that you readily judge some things as woo-- things like psychics or homeopaths-- you don't keep the "open mind" you want others to keep about your god. How would you react if a Sylvia supporter said to you--

"You should bear in mind that another person's knowledge and experiences are different from one's own and perhaps not be too hasty to judge something as woo just because you aren't party to the evidence."

And why shouldn't other skeptics react that way to your god spin? If all woo could use the same argument to support their case--then what sort of skeptic wouldn't conclude that your case was woo too? There's no statute of limitation on evidence for god-- if evidence should ever become available, my judgment that god is woo is negated. My judgment doesn't change anyone's ability to come up with good evidence-- it doesn't keep an actual god from manifesting at any time. But it does keep me from fooling myself in a way I've been fooled before and a way I'm convinced you're fooling yourself. If your evidence can apply equally to known woo-- it sucks as evidence.

Airplanes fly whether I believe they can or not. How does your god compare?
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
Girl, what I'm saying is that there are NO true skeptics. We ALL have blind spots. The thing is to minimise them.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. One can have many errors in ones' knowledge base and draw conclusions based on inadequate evidence and all that. But a "blind spot" in my use of the term here refers to non-evidence based beliefs one excludes from the evidence based paradigm.

Not everyone believes in woo. Give an example of what you are referring to.
 
Belz... said:
...



I never said they claimed both. I don't know of one who claims both.

And I'm not trying to excuse anything. You'll be hard-pressed to find someone who believes LESS in woo and religion than me.
Click to expand...
One of us is confused about what the other means. And I don't know which one. Maybe I don't get what you mean but if I do then you don't get what I mean.

I'll try again. They are hypocrites if they claim they believe without evidence. Obviously they are defining "evidence" in some way that they aren't declaring, but they have to be using some criteria or they wouldn't believe.
 
articulett said:
I suspect that you readily judge some things as woo-- things like psychics or homeopaths-- you don't keep the "open mind" you want others to keep about your god. How would you react if a Sylvia supporter said to you--
Click to expand...

I would just like to say that I have just recieved a message from the Easter Bunny supporters, and they are saying:

You should bear in mind that another person's knowledge and experiences are different from one's own and perhaps not be too hasty to judge something as woo just because you aren't party to the evidence.
Click to expand...

;)
 
-Fran- said:
THIS I agree with :)
...
Click to expand...
We seem to be using a different definition of blind spot. The particular blind spot I am referring to here is one of hypocrisy, not one of simple error.

Correcting one's incorrect conclusions is not always easily done. We tend to cling to existing conclusions a bit more tenaciously than when learning subjects de novo. But if one follows the principle that, provided the evidence is sound one changes conclusions as indicated, then errors are not the same kind of blind spots as claiming one's god beliefs are 'different' from other woo. Nor are such errors the same as claiming one must be agnostic about gods while ignoring the fact other woo is not really given the same accord.
 
Last edited:
skeptigirl said:
We seem to be using a different definition of blind spot. The particular blind spot I am referring to here is one of hypocrisy, not one of simple error.
Click to expand...

Yes, I realized that too when I read your post above (post 394). What I thought was meant with "blind spot" was some sort of catch all phrase for "thinking mistakes" that would include both how the theist skeptics are reasoning + all sorts of thinking mistakes that all people do from time to time, skeptics or not. As such no one is of course a perfect skeptic.

My view of what a skeptic is though, is not one that never make these mistakes, but one who honestly questions oneself as well as others. And the "theist skeptics" on here seems considerably less skeptic to me because it would seem they question others beliefs, but not their own. Just as you say, obviously they can't have since they still maintain it without good evidence based reasons. It does seem like hypocrisy to me as well.

So, I agreed with Belz that no one is perfect, but I do see that the definitions on blind spots differ a bit, yes.
 
Last edited:
Yeah... science, like skeptics, has gaps in knowledge-- but we have a method for correcting errors and filling those gaps with the best tools for the job. Faith isn't so good at that. And it's better to have a gap-- then to fill the gap with crap. :)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom