If there was empirical evidence for gods we wouldn't be having this discussion. And in spite of your claim everyone interprets evidence differently, there is still a set of rules governing the scientific process.
Which is still open to interpretation as there is no such thing as complete knowledge. If the "rules" always worked in the same way then everyone here would have the same opinions about everything. Obviously, that is not the case. So, you are left with two possible conclusions -- A) that different people can come to different rational decisions even with the same data, or; B) only a small minority of skeptics are "true" skeptics, although strange it is always the speaker who is a member of the "true" skeptic group.
The first is an admission of the limitations of the knowledge and the human condition. The second is an excuse for an ideological ego-trip of the sort that causes others to view skeptics as arrogant, morally superior know-it-alls. I would argue that the first view is far more helpful in both a practical and inter-personal way.
The Bible, for example is not more convincing than any other writings from the time. So historical evidence would be looked at objectively. Christians, by definition do not take that approach. They assume certain things and work the evidence around those.
As a non-Christian I agree that it doesn't make sense. However, that is not my point. As skepticism is a
methodology, not a set of dogma it must always (IMHO) be tentative in its conclusions. That in turn means in effect to respect that others may come to different conclusions than you even using the same evidence. We may not like it, but there is no way around it. The alternative is to turn things into an us-vs-them battle of beliefs.
I don't think I have denied that. You can use the term comprehend as if it means a lack of imagination or a failure to consider all possibilities. That would be incorrect. I can imagine it. I do so and come to the same conclusion.
We are limited human beings with limited intellectual abilities. We can never be absolutely sure. If there is anything to the notion that a skeptic only accepts things tentatively and is always open to having his or her mind changed then by definition they must be willing to accept the claims of an overall skeptical outlook even when it doesn't make sense personally. Otherwise, to assume otherwise is to, in effect, think one has absolute knowledge, an impossibility.
Perhaps you cannot 'comprehend' as you put it, (see the problem objectively as I would put it) that all god beliefs are equally imaginary.
What I comprehend is that it doesn't matter what I believe personally when it comes to respecting the view of others. I can argue with them all I want, but in the end I have to respect their right to think differently than I do. Turn "skeptic" into a litmus test and for all practical purposes you aren't doing that.
You don't change science in order to avoid hurting someone's feelings.
But, using the term "science" to insist that a particular view of the universe -- e.g. your own -- is superior to all others as
an objective fact is to my mind not science or critical thinking. It smacks of egotism and arrogance even if in the final analysis your view
is superior. We have to be willing to respect other people's right to be -- in our own personal view -- wrong.
And if you substitute the scientific process for the term skepticism you might have a better understanding why using the term skepticism as if it were an ideology rather than a philosophy is wrong.
You're right -- it is wrong. What I am saying is that, in effect turning skepticism into a list of requirements in specific beliefs that one must hold to be a true "skeptic" that you are turning skepticism into an ideology.
Here you are completely mistaken and you are confusing a set of beliefs with the process of how one acquires beliefs. Like I said, skepticism is about the scientific process as the means of determining the correct interpretation of the evidence. There are no fixed views contained in that interpretation. All that is fixed is the process of discovering the world.
Which is exactly my point. But, we can wax poetic about the scientific method and no fixed beliefs, but we undercut it all if we turn around and suggest that a proper skeptic must believe in certain things. That doesn't sound open minded to me.
We obviously agree here. You cannot see however that I have looked very closely at god beliefs. For whatever reasons (you can't let go of god perhaps) you assume because I have expressed my conclusion as part of the discussion here that I couldn't change that conclusion given sufficient evidence.
I didn't say that. I don't know what you can or cannot do when it comes to letting go of a particular belief. Point is that you don't know about other people either.
And if some of you think that Cleon, KittyNH, Hal, Remmie, etc. are woo, that's your choice. I don't and I don't want to alienate people who are doing a lot to further the cause of skepticism. If you're so passionate about atheist orthodoxy, I suggest you go join AA or FFRF because their agenda is promoting atheism, not skepticism and might be more to your liking.
