Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[Apology]

I think we are in complete agreement. My response is always dependant on the person I am engaging. So, I rarely want to tell a christian, or anyone for that matter, to F**** off.

However, I don't think this what the Science Magazine editor meant. He didn't mean we should be telling christiansd to "F**** off." He meant that we shouldn't care if someone doesn't want to hear the truth and that we shouldn't pull any punches when we debunk false beliefs. If they don't want to have their beliefs questioned, or don't want to face the truth, they can always "F**** off." We don't actually say it to them.

The only thing we differ on, which I think is as it should be, is exactly what response is necessary. Our respective personalities decide that. I have a very high tolerance for BS unless someone asks me my position on it, then I have zero tolerance.

Yeah, I realized that atheists rarely tell people to F*** Off, but I did use the term to form my analogy. I think we are in total agreement now, in that it really needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis.

 

[Belz...]

God exists is a fact statement.

How about "I believe God exists". Is it any different ? Just asking.

I'm skeptical of such a claim until I see half-naked pics.

I'm with Lonewulf about this...

 

[CFLarsen]

None whatever.

Then, make that your argument, instead of criticizing those who don't claim evidence of their beliefs.

I understand that the belief/make-belief is comforting. My make-believe that my soft toys were sentient comforted me as a young child, but I wouldn't wish to maintain such an irrational belief or make-belief in my adult life, especially as someone striving for rationality and scepticism in their lives. I'm struggling with how they can maintain this comforting belief given the healthy dose of rationality they no doubt carry as sceptics.

Because they don't claim evidence of their beliefs.

What is it about this very simple point that you don't get?

Great - you have your external stimulus. Unfortunately in the process you've removed any possibility of the result being belief in god.

Why?

What if I don't? Are you going to bring out the comfy chair? No, of course not all of it is. I believe I've already said that. The bits that aren't evidential are imagination. Imagined belief. If that's all there is to it, that's fine.

And some feel the exact same way with what they call "god".

Why isn't that "fine"?

Because I know the well-documented origin of the fad for putting "Jedi Knight" on census forms. And it ain't a genuine belief in midichlorians. Anyone who's signed up since who actually believes this is delusional.

No, it doesn't matter at all. As far as I'm concerned, it's all fictional.

Now you are conflating evidence (of the various origins of religions) with your personal opinion.

No, I really, really don't. Pick up your dictionary. "Believe", in the context of Believe in" means "to be persuaded of the truth or existence of". Perhaps you're right, and all theist sceptics "believe in" god but don't believe that one exists. I'm far from persuaded that's the case, but assuming you're right, that is irrational behaviour, the very definition of "cognitive dissonance", and at least arguably, not sceptical.

OK, this has got to stop. Where have I claimed that all theist skeptics "believe in" god but don't believe that one exists?

I am rapidly losing count of how often I have to ask you for evidence of what you claim I have said. Do you think it is possible for you to stick to what I actually claim, instead of what you want me to have claimed?

The saints who claim the existence of god and those feelings as evidence of god you mean? That's not helping your argument.

??

What argument are you talking about?

If I say that only some of it is, it's pretty bloody clear that I don't believe all of it is.

Thus, your argument is invalid.

I can't. No more than I can tell for certain that ghosts don't exist.

Then stop telling people that their beliefs are not real beliefs.

I'm going by what you say. If what you say is true, you have already set the assumption for me.

Don't talk nonsense. You made the assumption, you bring the evidence.

That was sarcasm. I'm resistant in the sense that I'm sceptical that what you say actually applies to sceptics who hold beliefs like this, and in that if you're right, it doesn't make the position sceptical, and certainly not rational. I understand what you're saying, but we obviously disagree as to the implications of your hypothesis for the nature of the belief.

Your whole argument has been sarcasm all along?

Not quite accurate. I'm well aware of how people can compartmentalise and fail to apply rationality to certain aspects of their lives. It's the fact that we're talking about sceptics here that makes it hard to accept. It means they aren't applying the same criticism to this part of their lives as the rest of it. That's up to them, I can't possibly stop them from behaving in this way, and I have no desire to try. I'm simply trying to establish for myself the sense of the religious position they hold.

Then, you have thoroughly misunderstood what skepticism is. It isn't a carte-blanche to validate your own preconceived notions of how believers should believe.

What have you read of the skeptic writers? E.g., Shermer, Randi, Gardner, Plait, Wiseman, Nickell, Radford, Dawkins, Hines, Sagan?

To the typical religious believer, the two religions at present could not be further apart. Same goes for Scientology - Christians and atheists alike lay criticism at its door, the former partly because it's "made up religion". As time goes on, this criticism will be less applicable. For the sceptic, I would suggest that the two religions should already be equated with one another, let alone in 1000 years time. It's this lack of critical thought as applied to one's own take on religion that is at the root of this whole thing. The sceptic can recognise that X, Y and Z religions are baseless and rejects them on this basis, yet the theist sceptic chooses regardless to select one version of religion, and goes with that, uncritically, with no evidence.

No, no, no. Pay attention to what I say. In 3007, you don't know that the Jedi religion is a "made-up" religion. You cannot tell it apart from the Abrahamic religions, because there are no primary sources. Lost in the mist of time.

Will you equate "Jedi" with "Christianity"? If not, why not?

Here's me, not liking it, but accepting it. What else can I do?

But you don't accept how/what they believe. Why else continue?

This rather depends upon the "believe in"/"believe in existence of" argument above. If the two are interchangeable, then the belief cannot be a genuine belief.

You are not the sole arbiter of what belief can be, and if a belief is a genuine belief.

I actually think I'm starting to understand the disconnect here - I think it comes down to a fundamental misunderstanding of definitions on my part. I, and I think many others, see scepticism and rationality as going hand-in-hand. Whereas under a strict definition of scepticism alone, belief in god can be neither sceptical nor unsceptical. However, it is certainly irrational and therefore a nonsensical and undesirable position for sceptics who wish to be consistently rational to hold.

Thus, sceptics believing in god really are no less sceptical than anyone else.

Let me return to the question posted in the OP: Do you think that skepticism - rationality, critical thinking, the lot - inevitably leads to atheism?

 

[articulett]

How about "I believe God exists". Is it any different ? Just asking.



I'm with Lonewulf about this...

Yes... the above is different. It's on par with an "opinion".

As for half naked pix-- I thought about showing the top half... from the back-- but it may be to my advantage to encourage your skepticism.

I prefer to be a woman of mystery and anonymity--

(Though I have met many JREFers at TAM whom can affirm my gender ...if you trust such info.)

 

[articulett]

Let me return to the question posted in the OP: Do you think that skepticism - rationality, critical thinking, the lot - inevitably leads to atheism?

Not inevitably... but more often then not. The more you learn the more you understand how people fool themselves and what sort of things really are true and what the world would look like if the things people were claiming were real actually existed (someone would win the MDC, for example.) You apply the skepticism to others...and to avoid being fooled... but then you start to wonder if you've been fooling yourself about other things that people readily fool themselves about. And God is a biggie. Moreover, people seem to think it's "good" to believe in god or that "faith" is good. As a skeptic it takes more effort to keep a delusion alive than it does to examine it closely. You become aware of questions that you never thought to ask-- maybe even were afraid to ask. And most eventually become atheists. Just as most Nobel prize winning scientists do. I think the seed was planted in me from the time I learned that Santa wasn't real... and I was confused about whether digging a hole in my backyard could lead to China or Hell.

If you polled all the people on who consider themselves skeptics regarding their religious beliefs, don't you think that most of them would consider themselves non theists? I think atheist would be the largest affiliation followed by something like deist or agnostic or apatheist -- or "spinoza's god"-- a nebulous god concept. I'd guess less than half would be dualists or non-materialists... people who believe in consciousness of some sort that exists absent a brain. How do you think those numbers would be different in a population of people who did not identify with the "skeptic" label?

There is one reality. I think of skepticism as a means of discovering that reality. I don't see a lot of room for the exploration of the invisible and immeasurable in that philosophy.

Does religious extremism lead inevitably to political dogmatism on the right? Not necessarily. But there is a high correlation. This is because it's a philosophy based on faith and feelings leading to truths and black and white thinking (right/wrong; good/bad) etc.

 

[CFLarsen]

Not inevitably... but more often then not.

How more often?

The more you learn the more you understand how people fool themselves and what sort of things really are true and what the world would look like if the things people were claiming were real actually existed (someone would win the MDC, for example.) You apply the skepticism to others...and to avoid being fooled... but then you start to wonder if you've been fooling yourself about other things that people readily fool themselves about. And God is a biggie.

Not that easy. The verifiable, intervening God is a biggie. Show no mercy there, no worries. But we can't apply skepticism to non-verificable, non-intervening phenomena.

Moreover, people seem to think it's "good" to believe in god or that "faith" is good. As a skeptic it takes more effort to keep a delusion alive than it does to examine it closely. You become aware of questions that you never thought to ask-- maybe even were afraid to ask. And most eventually become atheists.

Evidence?

Just as most Nobel prize winning scientists do.

Evidence?

I think the seed was planted in me from the time I learned that Santa wasn't real... and I was confused about whether digging a hole in my backyard could lead to China or Hell.

If you polled all the people on who consider themselves skeptics regarding their religious beliefs, don't you think that most of them would consider themselves non theists? I think atheist would be the largest affiliation followed by something like deist or agnostic or apatheist -- or "spinoza's god"-- a nebulous god concept. I'd guess less than half would be dualists or non-materialists... people who believe in consciousness of some sort that exists absent a brain. How do you think those numbers would be different in a population of people who did not identify with the "skeptic" label?

The problem with those polls is that they assume a common denominator. But there isn't one: To each his own "god".

There is one reality. I think of skepticism as a means of discovering that reality. I don't see a lot of room for the exploration of the invisible and immeasurable in that philosophy.

That's why we, as skeptics, shouldn't concern ourselves with those who don't claim evidence of their beliefs.

Does religious extremism lead inevitably to political dogmatism on the right? Not necessarily. But there is a high correlation. This is because it's a philosophy based on faith and feelings leading to truths and black and white thinking (right/wrong; good/bad) etc.

Is that why you feel you need to portray those you disagree with politically as mentally ill?

 

[qayak]

How about "I believe God exists". Is it any different ? Just asking.

Yes, it is different and it begs the question, "Why do you believe god exists?"

If you answer, "because of this evidence" and show it to us, we have the beginnings of a discussion. If you answer, "because I have faith that he does," then there is no basis for discussion and you are a woooooey bird!

 

[articulett]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/angier06/angier06_index.html
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm
(And this is over 9 years ago... I bet it's even lower now.)

Scientists, however, are a far less religious lot than the American population, and, the higher you go on the cerebro-magisterium, the greater the proportion of atheists, agnostics, and assorted other paganites. According to a 1998 survey published in Nature, only 7 percent of members of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences professed a belief in a "personal God." (Interestingly, a slightly higher number, 7.9 percent, claimed to believe in "personal immortality," which may say as much about the robustness of the scientific ego as about anything else.) In other words, more than 90 percent of our elite scientists are unlikely to pray for divine favoritism, no matter how badly they want to beat a competitor to publication. Yet only a flaskful of the faithless have put their nonbelief on record or publicly criticized religion, the notable and voluble exceptions being Richard Dawkins of Oxford University and[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Daniel Dennett of Tufts University. Nor have Dawkins and Dennett earned much good will among their colleagues for their anticlerical views; one astronomer I spoke with said of Dawkins, "He's a really fine parish preacher of the fire-and-brimstone school, isn't he?"
[/FONT]

 

[articulett]

Yes, it is different and it begs the question, "Why do you believe god exists?"

If you answer, "because of this evidence" and show it to us, we have the beginnings of a discussion. If you answer, "because I have faith that he does," then there is no basis for discussion and you are a woooooey bird!

Those reflect my sentiments. Believe what you want--don't expect me to find it respect worthy.

 

[articulett]

How more often?

I don't know. Why?

Not that easy. The verifiable, intervening God is a biggie. Show no mercy there, no worries. But we can't apply skepticism to non-verificable, non-intervening phenomena.

Correct-- but we can be skeptical that such things exist.

Evidence?



Evidence?

Provided above.

The problem with those polls is that they assume a common denominator. But there isn't one: To each his own "god".

Sure. And to each his own imaginary friend. And to each his own right not to have them and to think that those who do are a bit woo.

That's why we, as skeptics, shouldn't concern ourselves with those who don't claim evidence of their beliefs.

I agree. Unless they assume I should respect their beliefs... assume that I share their beliefs...state their beliefs as facts... or try to equate faith with science or denigrate lack of belief.

Is that why you feel you need to portray those you disagree with politically as mentally ill?

I do not. You are referring to the Skeptics Grow up thread... I have no idea what Dann's politics are, and I addressed your claims there. I don't think anyone whom I respect can draw your conclusion from what I wrote.
My statement is that there are people on this forum who seem to be having their own conversations-- they are not engaging in dialogue...they don't seem to have a point... they just seem to be trying to win some imaginary game in their head. I and others don't seem to be able to understand their tangential pedantic wanderings enough to disagree with them. It's the Gish Gallop. I like to warn others who come upon such people, because I know that they, like me, will wonder if it's something about themselves... and so they just keep trying to fix things... Meanwhile the person with "pugilistic discussion syndrome" hasn't a clue that nobody is engaging in actual back and forth dialogue with them. Their questions are never really meant to clarify-- they're meant to prove some point to themselves. Kind of like what you do sometimes. And I have no idea what your "politics" are. Nor do I call this a mental illness. I do note, that it's not very fixable and many people have the same problems with the same people. These people never wonder if the communication errors they have might have something to do with them.

Your final question above was one of those inane questions that wasn't meant to clarify--rather it was to win some point in some game that is in your head. It's off topic and meant to make a dig at me for some off topic reason. It doesn't further the discussion and the inference is entirely incorrect. You are modeling the behavior I'm talking about, Claus. Supposedly you have a point on this thread, but I'll be damned if I can figure out what it is. Why don't you see if someone else can sum it up. If not--then maybe you are the person with the communication problem--and not me.

I seem to be able to understand the majority and am in concurrence with the majority. I imagine most people could sum up my points fairly well:

"There is no requirement that skeptics be atheists-- but most are --probably as a result of such skepticism." I've provided the evidence. Moreover, I think it's obvious as to why. I don't care if you disagree, and I have no idea what your point is. Moreover, I reserve the right to criticize those, such as yourself, who have opened up the floor via criticism of me.

 

[schlitt]

It is possible for someone to use skeptical methodology and reach the wrong conclusion.

It depends on:
-The evidence being examined
-The ability of the skeptic to reason
-The relating knowledge of the skeptic, and it's validity.

All of these things vary, and skeptics reach different conclusions.

However, in an ideal world, each skeptic would reach the same conclusion if true skeptical methodology was followed, because the truth is constant and singular.

For example:
Someone claims that heating silver to 58 degrees celcius will make it change into gold.

There is a truth regarding this statement, that truth is either:
The statement is true.

or

The statement is false.

Using a skeptical methodology one could reach the true conclusion fairly easily.

Now with the claim "There is a god who created the universe" or any other religious claim, there is also a truth regarding the claim.
It is either true or false.

Using a skeptical methodology would hopefully arrive at the correct truth, just as it did in the silver example.
This is of course a lot easier said than done when it comes to religion, but that does not change the fact that a true skeptical methodology should always arrive at a single result.

 

[CFLarsen]

I don't know. Why?

Are you serious?

How can you ask why, on a forum like this? Aren't you aware that your own claims will be scrutinized, even if you call yourself a skeptic? Maybe even more so?

Don't feign ignorance. Provide the evidence of your claims.

Put up or shut up.

Correct-- but we can be skeptical that such things exist.

Nobody is saying otherwise.

Provided above.

It doesn't say that most Nobel Prize winners are atheists. It says that:

On the subject of eminent scientists, they mention unpublished data collected by one of the co-authors: "Beit-Hallahmi (1988) found that among Nobel Prize laureates in the sciences, as well as those in literature, there was a remarkable degree of irreligiosity, as compared to the populations they came from." The reference is to: Beit-Hallahmi, B. (1988). The religiosity and religious affiliation of Nobel prize winners. Unpublished data.

You have not provided evidence of your claims.

Sure. And to each his own imaginary friend. And to each his own right not to have them and to think that those who do are a bit woo.

And I'm not saying otherwise.

I agree. Unless they assume I should respect their beliefs... assume that I share their beliefs...state their beliefs as facts... or try to equate faith with science or denigrate lack of belief.

If they do that, then by all means, have a ball. But if they don't - don't.

I do not. You are referring to the Skeptics Grow up thread... I have no idea what Dann's politics are, and I addressed your claims there. I don't think anyone whom I respect can draw your conclusion from what I wrote.

Oh yes you bleedin' well do! You brought up the phony diagnosis. Are you not responsible for your own posts??

My statement is that there are people on this forum who seem to be having their own conversations-- they are not engaging in dialogue...they don't seem to have a point... they just seem to be trying to win some imaginary game in their head. I and others don't seem to be able to understand their tangential pedantic wanderings enough to disagree with them. It's the Gish Gallop. I like to warn others who come upon such people, because I know that they, like me, will wonder if it's something about themselves... and so they just keep trying to fix things... Meanwhile the person with "pugilistic discussion syndrome" hasn't a clue that nobody is engaging in actual back and forth dialogue with them. Their questions are never really meant to clarify-- they're meant to prove some point to themselves. Kind of like what you do sometimes. And I have no idea what your "politics" are. Nor do I call this a mental illness. I do note, that it's not very fixable and many people have the same problems with the same people. These people never wonder if the communication errors they have might have something to do with them.

I don't give a flying fig how you rationalize your phony diagnosis of those you disagree with politically. What you did was totally out of bounds. It serves no purpose on a forum for skepticism and critical thinking, other than to validate your own political views by vilifying those you disagree with.

Your final question above was one of those inane questions that wasn't meant to clarify--rather it was to win some point in some game that is in your head. It's off topic and meant to make a dig at me for some off topic reason. It doesn't further the discussion and the inference is entirely incorrect. You are modeling the behavior I'm talking about, Claus. Supposedly you have a point on this thread, but I'll be damned if I can figure out what it is. Why don't you see if someone else can sum it up. If not--then maybe you are the person with the communication problem--and not me.

I seem to be able to understand the majority and am in concurrence with the majority. I imagine most people could sum up my points fairly well:

"There is no requirement that skeptics be atheists-- but most are --probably as a result of such skepticism." I've provided the evidence. Moreover, I think it's obvious as to why. I don't care if you disagree, and I have no idea what your point is. Moreover, I reserve the right to criticize those, such as yourself, who have opened up the floor via criticism of me.

You are the one with the problem here. You portray those you disagree with as mentally ill, and you don't even care what their response might be.

Do you call yourself open-minded?

 

[Belz...]

As for half naked pix-- I thought about showing the top half... from the back-- but it may be to my advantage to encourage your skepticism.

Oh, I'm not skeptical. The back will do!!

 

[Big Les]

I'm painfully aware that I've been suckered into a never-ending point-by-point semantic argumentathon with the indomitable CFLarsen, and quite frankly, I've lost the will to live. I've said everything that's worth saying, and more besides. Despite what he says, I am not telling anybody what to think. I'm simply disagreeing with his hypothetical take on the issue.

If belief in god really does amount to what he's laid out (i.e. imagination), I don't see it as a belief worth holding, whether it's genuinely held or not. There's nothing wrong with it per se - it's not doing anybody (including the believer) any harm, and it doesn't invalidate their scepticism as they apply it to the external world in any way. It's simply an interesting and difficult to understand (for an atheist) contradiction that somebody who otherwise strives to hold positions only where there is evidence, would persist in holding this one.

 

[Egg]

I think theists often confirm the notion that they are arrogant ignoramuses with knee-jerk reaction to nonbelievers...

Knee-jerk? Like they see a post by a new non-believer and their own bias against such people leads them to abandon evidence based critical thought and read into the post many things that weren't said in order to build straw men they can victoriously knock down? Yeah, those damn theists!

I've tried to do some honest examining of my beliefs since reading this thread. Is that just something only other people should do?

With all the judgment nonbelievers get, let us least enjoy the camaraderie amongst our own and the pleasure of doing something to warrant the abuse...

Welcome to the forums, unless, that is, you're not a back-patting, Dawkinsian meme spreading atheist, in which case we'll just assume you're some judgemental, ignorant idiot and put you in your place.

Plus... the nonbelievers tend to have a better sense of humor and irony...

Well I for one find some of your posts pretty funny. Does that count?

I came here for some intelligent and challenging discussion, not to preach my own "higher truth" or berate atheists or pick a fight. I've not expected special treatment for my beliefs over any other, nor tried to present any evidence for them. If you've read my posts as pushy or offensive, that certainly wasn't the intention.

I'm a little surprised to see "The God who wasn't there" cited by a sceptic as credible evidence though.

It's very credible evidence about the origins of the bible. You can't manufacture evidence to show a god doesn't exist... only to show why people might think he does without having a clue as to the origin of their beliefs.

Am I reading this wrong or did you just say that the manufactured evidence is credible?

 

[articulett]

I disagree completely Claus. I will leave it to those I respect to translate if you have a point since I can't follow you, and I do follow and respect most of the people on this forum.

For those who care about Claus's digression, he's referring to this as my "diagnosis of mental illness"

Pugilistic Discussion Syndrome
In this curious form of aphasia, the subject is unable to distinguish between a discussion and a contest. The subject approaches any online forum as a sort of playing field, and attempts to "win" the discussion by any means necessary. The rules of the imaginary contest are apparently clear to the individual as he or she will often point out when others break them, but when asked to outline these rules the individual is reluctant, perhaps not wishing to confer an "advantage" on any "opponents." The conditions for winning are similarly difficult to pin down, although in some cases the individual will declare himself the winner of a discussion that, to all others, appears to be ongoing.


It's from wired magazine: http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commentary/alttext/2007/06/alttext_0620

I think most people would find it funny and recognize the "type". I think those who get mad at it, might be the "type". It's a digression from here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3186243#post3186243

I don't know why Claus brought the discussion here-- is he mad? stalking me? Trying to start a fatwa in his "war on articulett"? Is he making some kind of sense or a point I'm missing?


That's one of the things that bug me about faith-- the faithful (or maybe just the annoying)-- spout their opinions so freely--like you should be eager to hear them-- and then when you assert your opinions in return they have a tizzy fit! They sure don't give you the respect they seem to think their opinions deserve.


It's their imagined expertise or the patronizing insincere questions that really annoy me. Most of Claus's questions are like that to me. In fact all of those I think of as afflicted with "pugilistic discussion syndrome" are like that. They ask loaded questions... never care about the answers-- never cede a point-- and I just get the impression of a toddler having a tantrum screaming "I win! I win!". I jshould probably just slip quietly away, but I get a wicked thrill from getting them riled up. Should I tone myself down?


So, folks (other than Claus) , am I the one with a problem as Claus asserts? Do I portray those who disagree with me as mentally ill? Do you think there is a good reason or point for Claus derailing this thread to chastise me? Or is Claus in his own reality on this one-- because I sure can't follow him.


I must be arrogant, because I think the reaction is due to me hitting a nerve. I actually like Claus. But I think it's weird that he decided to give me a piece of his mind about another thread here in an effort (I imagine) to stir up people into feeling like my enemies. But why? Have I said anything so awful? I don't think I've ever said anything terrible to anyone when they haven't said far worse first. I'm going to pretend it's because I'm wickedly clever like Christopher Hitchens and they have no decent response.

 

[articulett]

I'm painfully aware that I've been suckered into a never-ending point-by-point semantic argumentathon with the indomitable CFLarsen, and quite frankly, I've lost the will to live. I've said everything that's worth saying, and more besides. Despite what he says, I am not telling anybody what to think. I'm simply disagreeing with his hypothetical take on the issue.

If belief in god really does amount to what he's laid out (i.e. imagination), I don't see it as a belief worth holding, whether it's genuinely held or not. There's nothing wrong with it per se - it's not doing anybody (including the believer) any harm, and it doesn't invalidate their scepticism as they apply it to the external world in any way. It's simply an interesting and difficult to understand (for an atheist) contradiction that somebody who otherwise strives to hold positions only where there is evidence, would persist in holding this one.

NO.... don't leave--- Claus is so cute when he gets angry!

 

[articulett]

Knee-jerk? Like they see a post by a new non-believer and their own bias against such people leads them to abandon evidence based critical thought and read into the post many things that weren't said in order to build straw men they can victoriously knock down? Yeah, those damn theists!

I was actually making a tongue in cheek response to ranillon--
Quote:
But, if you want to confirm the common criticism out there of skeptics as being arrogant know-it-alls convinced of their moral superiority -- not to mention corrupting skepticism is general, IMHO -- then go right ahead with what you are doing now.

I thought it was funny that he thinks we should care about our image...when theists don't seem particularly concerned with our image of them. It was a joke. Yes. There are some theists who come here that I do think that about. I'm sure when you run across them, you will conclude the same. Have you met DOC?

I've tried to do some honest examining of my beliefs since reading this thread. Is that just something only other people should do?

Welcome to the forums, unless, that is, you're not a back-patting, Dawkinsian meme spreading atheist, in which case we'll just assume you're some judgemental, ignorant idiot and put you in your place.

Agreed. Hence my point about finding camaraderie here. The above appears to be on par with many religious peoples' opinions about atheism.

Well I for one find some of your posts pretty funny. Does that count?

I came here for some intelligent and challenging discussion, not to preach my own "higher truth" or berate atheists or pick a fight. I've not expected special treatment for my beliefs over any other, nor tried to present any evidence for them. If you've read my posts as pushy or offensive, that certainly wasn't the intention.

Did I make you feel that way? I wasn't really thinking of you. But there are those who seem to expect a sort of special deference towards god beliefs that they don't extend to similar beliefs-- say demon belief. And I want to know why. Is a god more likely than a Satan or demons? I'm not asking you to answer--I just don't want to be slammed if I treat the two beliefs equally. I feel weird having to pretend to believe or that belief is good.

Am I reading this wrong or did you just say that the manufactured evidence is credible?

There can't be any evidence that something (god) doesn't exist-- just like there can't be evidence that demons don't exist. The only evidence one can make for either case is to show there is no measurable evidence showing that they do exist. You can also show how and why people come to believe in such things and how many of them are wrong or unsure about the origins of their belief or how their beliefs are similar to recognized "myths". What sort of evidence do you imagine there could be that would prove demons don't exist?

The video shows how people can come to believe things they really have no clue about very strongly-- especially when certain manipulations are put into play. That's all. There's no video that can prove god doesn't exist. But there is a video showing that he's very similar to known ways people fool themselves:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/video8.htm

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....

You don't control this debate. You don't decide what points we can bring up.

Fine, ignore the issues being discussed, make comments completely unrelated to the issues being discussed. That makes for great discussions.

....You have not been paying any attention to anything I have said. I have never put god fantasies on a pedestal, quite contrary. I have put them exactly where I put pink unicorn beliefs, but only if evidence is claimed.

This is a pedestal in the context of the point I was discussing:

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

....There is no difference between believing in a non-evidential pink unicorn and a non-evidential god.

That wasn't the context of the discussion. If you make one of those comments unrelated to what is being discussed, don't expect people to read your mind and figure out what you meant.

....There is no difference between believing in an evidential pink unicorn and an evidential god.

Print the above two sentences out, and pin them to your wall.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There, how's that?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Setting aside Claus take for a moment, there's a difference between error, later corrected, and wilful belief in defiance of the (lack of) evidence. All of us fail to apply scepticism pretty regularly, but I for one always want to be made aware of my errors so that I can reassess. Making errors and striving to correct them does not invalidate one's scepticism; it's the very essence of it for me.

Thank you Big Les. This is what I would have also replied to Belz. And I believe it has been said over and over here. Why it isn't registering is another matter.

So, Belz, you are not getting the point from just the information we are posting. You and some others here are viewing this as a fairness issue rather than a process issue. I get the fairness issue. What is it about the process issue that is not clicking with you?