Belz...
Fiend God
Yes, I would call him a skeptic, because he's not claiming anything, and that's exactly what I was saying.
Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?
- Status
Yes, I would call him a skeptic, because he's not claiming anything, and that's exactly what I was saying.
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
Me too. I respect that. I respect someone who says they "just believe"-- or they believe because it makes them feel good. So long as you present your belief as a preference, feeling, or belief--and don't expect that to mean more than that to me... I'll gladly call you welcome you as a skeptic.
I don't like when theists assert that they have logical reasons for their belief or try to manipulate me into feeling bad when I point out the irrationality... I don't like those who pretend that believing in a god is as skeptical of a position as not believing in a god. I despise it when people try to blur the line between faith and science by using semantics to pretend they are the same...or to pretend a lack of belief is the same as a belief or to pretend that skepticism or atheism is a dogma. I understand they do it to convince themselves and prop up their beliefs. However, it's an opinion I don't share... and once someone inflicts such opinions on me, they've invited my opinion about their opinion in response.
And what irks me most is when theists assert or believe or expect others to believe that their faith or belief makes them moral or worthy of some sort of deference or respect. I think faith makes you vulnerable to delusion--that's about it. I'm open to evidence showing otherwise, but so far it's semantics and tangents and bad analogies. The kind of stuff that can be used by all woo profferers.
Just as well I haven't said that then
I've said that they are being unsceptical about that belief, or at the least irrational (I have traditionally equated conscious striving for rationality with scepticism), and that it seems inconsistent to be unsceptical about what I see as a pretty big issue (god).If they are unsceptical about this issue, that in no way invalidates their scepticism on other issues, and as there is a clear difference between imagined god and claims about real-world phenomena, I in no way equate them with other believers.
If you like. You would get the same molecules and neural connections as I expect you would with more readily observable love. But unrequited love is entirely in the mind of the would-be lover. It's imaginary, like god. BUT it still has an external stimulus, a real reason for its existence in the mind of the beholder. That alone makes it different from a belief in, or an imagination of, god. And it is on some level detectable, also unlike god.
This whole line of questioning is a total red herring. Neither "real" love nor unrequited love are comparable with "god", so your analogy fails.
A god that existed outside the mind (implied by the very existence of belief in it) would by definition be testable, if not now, then at some stage in the future or in the past. As of right now, with no evidence and no reason to expect any, I would suggest that even by your definition, it's sceptical to assume that it doesn't exist, and unsceptical to believe otherwise.
What is your point then? I took your original response as an implicit denial that love could be detected. What did you actually mean? Do you or do you not accept that love can be tested for by observing actions and by measuring physiological and neural responses? I realise the resulting quality of evidence would not be high, but it would be a damn sight higher than the equivalent for god. You would be detecting the person's belief that they were in love
Not until you clarify whether or not you accept that "love", however it is defined, can be shown to exist either by observation of the individual's behaviour and inspiration for his or her feelings, or as per the links I posted by detecting chemical and electrical changes in the brain.
Well, I see it as qualitatively quite different, because it amounts to a desire for a loving relationship. "True love" is simply an expression of a strongly bonded real-world loving relationship with real, tangible results and benefits (social cohesion, reproduction, childcare, access to different skill sets and so on. Chemically, emotionally, sure, call it "love" if you like. And in fact it's much closer to "god" than real love, because it is entirely imagined. Yet it is still not directly comparable with belief in god, because it has real stimuli, real evolutionary and social imperatives driving it, and a real chance at fulfilment and becoming real. Unlike "god".
Also, as we've touched upon, "love" means different things to different people and in different situations. Whereas a belief in god, whatever else it carries with it, brings with it a claim to the existence of a third party - a deity.
Yes, I've seen this distinction being made many times here on this thread, but, as I said in an earlier post, I don't quite understand why it would make such a huge difference. I admit I may be missing some vital point here somewhere, but as of yet (until I clearly see it) I am not convinced of this.
To me it still seems like saying you have a beliefe only, IS the same thing as making a claim. Since there must be some reason to why you believe (at least I would think so) and that reason must be based on something - and as long as there is, regardless of if they actually claim to have proof, then there is actually a claim to discuss, be it vague, or indirect, but it is enough to have something to scrutinize and discuss. I really don't get this "have not said they have proof so there's nothing to discuss"-reasoning.
Not that they HAVE to discuss anything, of course, but if you are to discuss it at all, I don't think that's a valid way to get around it. They have said they believe, that's enough claim to have something to discuss. As I personally see it.
ETA:
I mean, even if they admit they have no proof, it doesn't solve the inconsistency, and it's what I am after. Believing something and admitting you have no proof for it, makes the inconsistency even bigger, really. Saying "I believe, but I am not claiming to have proof" for it is ever as much keeping a holy cow, that you do not intend to question as saying "I believe, and I have proof!" The only thing admitting that you have no proof does is to be less (or not at all) pushy with your beliefs, but that's not what the question is about. It's not their way of life we are questioning (I am not anyway) they have never pushed anything on me, and they don't bother me in the least. But the OP was all about this inconsistency, as I interpreted it, and if it actually is compatible with the definition of skepticism.
Some seem to say the "having not made claims of proof"-thing changes everything and indeed is what in fact makes it compatible. But I can't quite see that.
Last edited:
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
Yes... I want to know why they believe... how they believe... what they believe... why they think it's good to believe... what, if anything, would change their mind? How do they rectify it with similar woo they don't believe, etc. I think that can be informative. But I don't know how to inquire without them realizing that I find their beliefs irrational. And when they do realize it, they get defensive and manipulative and start the semantic spin about love and "blue" and proof as though there are all kinds of truth including "higher truths". But I'm really only interested in the one that is the same for everyone.
Why?
We are talking about beliefs in something that is not claimed to be evidential. Not a red herring at all.
No, no. Just because you believe in something does not mean you believe in the existence of something.
How do you know that a god that existed outside the mind would necessarily be testable in the future?
We can detect love by observing actions (although we still need a method to find out when it is faked), and we can also measure some psyhiological and neural responses.
But that doesn't mean we have "love" down pat, fully scientifically explained.
But you won't defend any kind of love that isn't detectable?
Have you heard of people who love to be in love? They love the feeling itself?
It does not necessarily bring with it a claim to the existence of a deity.
You simply have to accept that some people don't claim that their god exists. You have to go with what people claim - not what you want them to claim, or think they claim. Until you do, you can argue from here to eternity(!), it still won't make your argument right.
Yes, exactly. And this thread is not about trying to change them anyway, this one is about the whys and hows. Claiming I have no proof for a belief is making it impossible for every one else to ask me questions on why and how? I can't see how it could do that.
Have patience with me, because I don't get this
To me this becomes some sort of paradox, I think. If they don't claim it exists, then they don't actually believe? And if they say they believe, they have stated that they think it exists, because why would you believe in something that doesn't exist?
It is kind of implied, I would think, that they actually do think that the thing they believe in exist. And they would have some reasons to believe it exists, too, I think. And any such reason must, obviously, be enough evidence for them, or they would have discarded the belief. So an actual claim of a reason or a proof, does not really have to be expressed, after the belief has been expressed, it's there all right.
I am curious as to why they believe and their reasons to it. Are there no whys, and no reasons?
Help me out here, Big Les, for example, you seem to have a good grip on this, is my reasoning here totally unreasonable??
Last edited:
The belief may be based on (admittedly) subjective evidence.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes? And we question the subjective evidence of woos all day long here, admitted ones, or not. As do they.
Have patience with me, because I don't get this
To me this becomes some sort of paradox, I think. If they don't claim it exists, then they don't actually believe? And if they say they believe, they have stated that they think it exists, because why would you believe in something that doesn't exist?
It is kind of implied, I would think, that they actually do think that the thing they believe in exist. And they would have some reasons to believe it exists, too, I think. And any such reason must, obviously, be enough evidence for them, or they would have discarded the belief. So an actual claim of a reason or a proof, does not really have to be expressed, after the belief has been expressed, it's there all right.
I am curious as to why they believe and their reasons to it. Are there no whys, and no reasons?
Help me out here, Big Les, for example, you seem to have a good grip on this, is my reasoning here totally unreasonable??
Let me ask you a question that will hopefully clear the fog.
Do you believe Harry Potter exists?
Let me ask you a question that will hopefully clear the fog.
Do you believe Harry Potter exists?
Thank you, Claus, I knew I could trust you
I know much better now what you are getting at, I really do. You are talking about believing in things as a concept, and not as actual existing entities. Because Harry Potter does indeed exist as such a concept, even though he do not exist as an actual being. I even understand your weird love analogy better now, even though I still think it is not quite all there.
Now, can you honestly say though, that you really think that the skeptic theists believe in a god in the same way that I believe in Harry Potter? I really don't think that they do - and if they don't then this does not really matter for this whole thread at all.
But if you can prove that they actually do believe in god in exactly the same way as we all believe in Harry Potter (as an exisiting character in an existing book, but not a real being) then, yes, I will accept that and admit that there is no inconsistency. Because in that case, I do also believe in ALL mythic characters that I have ever heard of, because, yes, I do realize that they exist as human made-up concepts.
ETA:
That still does not explain why they have chosen only god to believe in, in a Harry-Potterish-way, since the same goes for ALL made-up characters in the whole history of mankind. They don't go around proudly saying "I believe in Pippi Longstocking AND I'm a skeptic. You wanna make something of it?"
Last edited:
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
I would say it is a perception, it is what you do with the perception that matters.
There are many ways a perception can be invalid.
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
Blind spot
(modified to reflect how I am using the term and how I am not using the term)
Under definition #2 here, the person is either unaware of the blind spot or is aware of it but does nothing to change it. Under #4 definition here, the person is unaware of the information in question but upon becoming aware, updates their knowledge base.
The point I made has everything to do with a hypocritical blind spot, not a knowledge deficit blind spot.
A Christian can only be a skeptic by excluding their religious beliefs from a skeptical analysis. Lots of Christian skeptics just don't get that. They put their religious beliefs in a box and proclaim those beliefs are fine because they are based on something other than .....[fill in the rationalization]. And I would wager if you are one of those Christian skeptics you will never see my point because you have that blind spot.
If you are not one of those Christian skeptics then perhaps you can at least see where I am coming from even if you don't choose to change your own position. Tell me how any skeptic can rationalize certain god beliefs while considering other god beliefs as woo?
The problem I have with this explanation is beliefs are not quite that easily chosen. I just can't imagine a skeptic saying I will believe in god because the consequences are dire if I don't and minimal if I do. Once one looks at the evidence, even taking that position, would they then flip a coin to decide which god to believe in? I doubt it. They take the god they grew up believing in and instead use Pascal's Wager as an excuse to not let go of that god. It is not a 'true' skeptical position. A skeptical position would be to evaluate all the evidence and if you were going to use P's W as the rationale, you'd then decide which god to bet your afterlife on.
The difference is skeptics' beliefs are open to change when new evidence emerges. A Christian skeptic has a whole set of beliefs excluded from any skeptical analysis.
Yes, but I am also explaining why I define it the way I do. Isn't that the whole point of this thread?
I dispute that love is not evidential. Below, you admit that it is. Thus, a red herring.
What? What else could to "believe in god" possibly mean??? This is the most bizarre bit of semantics I think I've ever seen.
Because if it exists, it must be possible to test for it.
Good. Thank you. Love is evidential. QED.
There aren't many things that are. My point was that there is evidence for it, there is none (as yet) for god, so there is reason to believe in love beyond mere comfort.
But we've established that it is. At any rate, more so than "god".
Yes. What's your point?
What else does "I believe in god" mean?!
They don't claim it, but claim to believe in it. The claim of existence is implicit in the claim of belief. Otherwise, to put it bluntly, they're talking bollocks.
ETA - posted this before catching up with Fran's posts.
Last edited:
CFLarsen said:
Big Les said:
See the Harry Potter reasoning above for "further clearing up of the fog"!
ETA again:
Posted this before I saw you had caught up with my post. If this is really what he is saying, then yes it is truly a bit bizarre, and I can't really believe that he is serious?
Last edited:
Have patience with me, because I don't get this
To me this becomes some sort of paradox, I think. If they don't claim it exists, then they don't actually believe? And if they say they believe, they have stated that they think it exists, because why would you believe in something that doesn't exist?
It is kind of implied, I would think, that they actually do think that the thing they believe in exist. And they would have some reasons to believe it exists, too, I think. And any such reason must, obviously, be enough evidence for them, or they would have discarded the belief. So an actual claim of a reason or a proof, does not really have to be expressed, after the belief has been expressed, it's there all right.
I am curious as to why they believe and their reasons to it. Are there no whys, and no reasons?
Help me out here, Big Les, for example, you seem to have a good grip on this, is my reasoning here totally unreasonable??
I think it's entirely reasonable, and I think your response in turn here is likewise.
If god = Harry Potter, then they don't really believe in god at all. They don't even delude themselves into belief. They pretend to believe, nothing more. As I "believe" I said a few pages back. Of course, this is only how Claus sees it, so YMMV. If he's right, I think the rest of us can be forgiven for thinking "I believe in god" means "I genuinely think god exists".
Exactly! I mean, that is what I have been discussing all along in any case. I actually took their words for it, that they actually think god exists as a sentient being who is independant from humans' minds and the pages of the bible, as a premise for this whole thread.
Last edited:
Good sport, should a claim effecting objective perceived reality be involved; as to a "belief in god", what is the claim involving objective perceived reality?
And should that god be addressed as "Harry Potter", what's it to you?
Good sport, should a claim effecting objective perceived reality be involved; as to a "belief in god", what is the claim involving objective perceived reality?
And should that god be addressed as "Harry Potter", what's it to you?
OK, I honestly don't follow you here, could you rephrase a bit?
- Status