Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[drzeus99]

Also, religion seems to get some kind of special pass when it comes to evaluating its supernatural claims. (from some people)

Can we stop with this BS straw man? I don't see any of the atheists here who suggest we should be more accepting religious skeptics saying they should get "some kind of special pass".

That's just a BS straw man by those who would equate skepticism with strong atheism.

I respectfully beg to differ. My quote above is a valid question. This has nothing to do with any "straw man". A question based a real life observations by many people is certainly a valid question. If people don't like the question, so be it. Don't reply to it. But throwing the "straw man" term around in this
aspect is unwarranted.

How is this question misrepresenting some religious peoples positions.
There have even been replies in this thread where people admit that they
have a tendency to not apply the same critical thinking processes on their
own religious beliefs. Many religious people admit that as a fact. So, no misrepresentation of their beliefs is presented. In order to imply any "straw man", misrepresentation has to be present in my claims or questions.

It's a known fact that many religious people calling themselves skeptics
admit to giving religion a pass when it comes to skepticism. The question
again is, why?

Simple question. No straw man. No BS. Valid question.


Cheers,
DrZ

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Skeptigirl
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.


This is Skeptigirl's claim. That the religious spout their opinions like you should be "eager to hear them" (I get this a lot, even from folks like Loss Leader*, who talk about how their great faith justifies such things as circumcision). And then, if she asserts an opinion that runs contrary to the religious claim, people get in a "tizzy fit".
....
*Edited for mistakes; "Cleon" is not "Loss Leader". My bad.

Could you edit this a little more? I didn't say these things.

Thanks Articulett for clearing that up. Maybe Lonewulf still has time to edit the post.

 

[drzeus99]

There it is again... the BS straw man.

Not quite. If you'd like to discuss this question in an intelligent manner, I'd welcome the oppertunity, as would others.


Cheers,
DrZ

 

[-Fran-]

Try a little different way of looking at the problem.

Sometimes it isn't a knowledge deficit. When you provide the knowledge (and you're sure that it was clear) and the person either doesn't appear to recognize what you are saying (in this case), or isn't convinced or doesn't change their behavior (for example if you are teaching a class or promoting a work safety campaign), then instead of continuing to repeat the knowledge, reassess what the communication barrier is.

In this case the communication barrier is because some people in the discussion are concerned about fairness, rights to control the rule book, excluding and insulting people. Some, but not all of them have the added complication of being in denial that their god beliefs are woo. And those not wishing to be judgmental are in the habit of defending that denial, or they are of the position it isn't skeptical to be certain of something like god beliefs are woo. And while that latter position is valid, it ignores the problem certain god beliefs are in reality treated as true unless proven false while all other woo beliefs are false unless proven true.

Another group is concerned about the principles of skepticism. It's easier to see the special treatment afforded certain god beliefs if you aren't in the group affording those beliefs special treatment. And that special treatment includes skeptic atheists who are defending the special treatment claiming it is based on the principle of science not testing for designers and gods. I have always felt this was a cop out. It has taken discussions such as these for me to put my finger on exactly why I find it a cop out. And this thread has given me yet one more bit of clarity. That was in describing the two definitions of gods.

And then there is always a couple people, (who I won't name), that don't understand the principles of skepticism in the first place. Just what is and isn't evidence escapes them.

Thanks! You sure put words on many things I haven't quite been able to put my finger on. I've sure learned a lot in this thread. Yes, I see the different types more clearly now. Damn if I still know how to get around the communication problems though.

The group concerned about fairness, for example, you can only assure them that you are, in fact, not "out to get" the theist skeptics, but they still don't believe you, it seems, and keep searching for anything that can be interpreted as if you are.

The last group you mention, and those who articulett used the phrase 'pugilistic discussion syndrome' for, I just need more experience to learn how to avoid/deal with. It's easy to get drawn into discussions and take their baits... and before you know it you are discussing all sorts of stuff that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and are losing focus.

 

[articulett]

I would describe you as uninhibited when it comes to insulting people. But since I'm never on the receiving end, it doesn't affect me.

Now me, I tend to be socially challenged. I piss people off without really trying. I do get into those contests but I am aware it isn't any big deal to be in the wrong. As the sig says, to be wrong is to learn something new. When I'm right, however, politeness is not mandatory, but it does tend to make one look better.

See... you think it's you. I think it's Claus. I think the people you get in these conflicts with are the same people that everyone gets in conflicts with. They don't get along with anyone. But you think it's you... because you perceive conflict and so you try to fix it. They never think it's them-- so they never fix their communication problems. They just bully everyone telling everyone how wrong they all are and insult others for things that are much more glaring faults in themselves. They may or may not be religious-- but they do that thing that bugs me about a lot of the theists that preach here-- people like T'ai or DOC etc. They are forever noticing the non-existing faults of others while being utterly blind to the same faults blinking neon in themselves.

Most people are trying to get along and communicate better and clarify points and commonalities so they can pin down points of contention-- but they don't do that because they imagine they already know all there is to know about communicating.

From my perspective... it isn't you... it isn't Big Les... it isn't Fran...it isn't Lonewolf-- it's the ones asserting that everyone else has the problem except them. Thankfully, they are the minority-- and I'm glad they have chased my favorite posters away with their hubris. It's not even atheists against non atheists-- we have a of variety of people who can discuss the issues just fine. It's the blowhards trying to win the imaginary game going on in their heads and blaming everyone else for the conflict who are the stress inducers.

If you can't talk to them--you can always talk about them. Or put them on ignore. Or make a game at seeing how pissed off you can make them by giving them a taste of what they so readily dish out.

 

[drzeus99]

Again, I must stress, it's not religious claims that are being "given a pass" nor are religious beliefs being "given a pass" by those atheists who are accomodating to religious skeptics being part of JREF and organized skepticism - it's not hammering them because they aren't orthodox atheists like some people insist they should be. .

Ahh...OK. I think I see the problem here.
I'm more than willing to say that maybe I didn't quite express
my opinions (or some posts) with the intent I wanted.

In NO way would I ever "exclude" skeptics from being in the JREF community
because they may happen to believe in a god. That wasn't my intention
at all when creating this post. Many of the people I know who happen to be
skeptics also have some small belief that a diety exists. They are some of my
best friends and some of the most critical thinking people I know.
I welcome them here as well as with open arms into my home. Now, if we can
only get other people who have religious beliefs to become more skeptical
in their beliefs (non religious ones to start with), I don't think there's any question
that it would be GREAT.

Now, with that said, that still doesn't mean I can't question why these people can't extend these same critical thinking processes that they employ
through practically all other aspects of their life, to also include their religious
beliefs.

JUST ME PERSONALLY, I have a hard time acknowledging them as TRUE skeptical thinkers. Nothing personal against anyone, just something that bugs me personally. NO ATTACKS on anyone, not at all.

And because their critical thinking (leading to skepticism) DOESN'T extend to their religious beliefs, it's not hard for someone to understand why someone else would possibly think "Hmmm...why do religious beliefs get this special
pass.

Religious beliefs, almost universally, entails a belief in a supernatural being
(known as god to many, and big poppa in the sky to others), and often to
this supernatural being responsible for claimed supernatural events.

If true critical thinking was used to formulate an opinion regarding this, it's not hard to see that it "should" be dismissed as woo. Simple as that.

Relious beliefs in a god often get a pass from others who are skeptics in
regards to all other supernatural events.

Some wonderful skeptics have held out a belief in a god. But that in no way means that people can't question their "giving their OWN person supernatural
god belief" a pass.


I hope I clarified my thoughts on this a bit better than I previously attempted to.


Cheers,
DrZ

 

[drzeus99]

I assume the bolded part means something friendly? English is not my first language and I do not know that term.......

Indeed it did. The smiley face indicated the same as well.
I'm actually a very friendly person (who often has strong opinions)


BTW. If you don't mind me asking, what is your first language?
Maybe I can speak to you in that language.

I think we are in agreement. As I said, I cannot follow their line of reasoning and would maybe call them skeptic light™. Not my cup of tea, but still better than the guys who deny evidence and lie to "prove" their version of god is right (yec etc.). Right?

Yes, we are in agreement !



Cheers,
DrZ

 

[articulett]

Could you edit this a little more? I didn't say these things.

Thanks Articulett for clearing that up. Maybe Lonewulf still has time to edit the post.

Yes... that was me. I'm the one blaming the blowhards. You're still blaming yourself. So is BigLes. And Fran. But you can't fix the blowhards, and they don't know they're the ones who have something to learn and not as much to teach as they imagine.

Disagreement is normal. But most people work it out or laugh it off, right? I think women always wonder if it's something they said. But for some people conflict is their favorite sport, and their snits never lead to further understanding or a resolution... just some Twilight Zone tangential drama that you wonder how you managed to fall into where they are playing a win-lose game that you have no idea about-- and you thought you were just having a discussion.

Sometimes I actually find Claus or Unrepentant Sinner amusing or interesting or offering good insight... they aren't the worst... but they do agitate a lot of people and seem very unaware of the way they come across while asserting that others are much more offensive than I think those same people are. And when you comment on that, they accuse you of taking sides. And that's because it's a win-lose game to them. To everyone else it's a conversation on a forum or a discussion, right?

 

[-Fran-]

Ahh...OK. I think I see the problem here.
I'm more than willing to say that maybe I didn't quite express
my opinions (or some posts) with the intent I wanted.

In NO way would I ever "exclude" skeptics from being in the JREF community
because they may happen to believe in a god. That wasn't my intention
at all when creating this post. Many of the people I know who happen to be
skeptics also have some small belief that a diety exists. They are some of my
best friends and some of the most critical thinking people I know.
I welcome them here as well as with open arms into my home. Now, if we can
only get other people who have religious beliefs to become more skeptical
in their beliefs, I don't think there's any question that it would be GREAT.

Now, with that said, that still doesn't mean I can't question why these people can't extend these same critical thinking processes that they employ
through practically all other aspects of their life, to also include their religious
beliefs.

JUST ME PERSONALLY, I have a hard time acknowledging them as TRUE skeptical thinkers. Nothing personal against anyone, just something that bugs me personally. NO ATTACKS on anyone, not at all.

And because their critical thinking (leading to skepticism) DOESN'T extend to their religious beliefs, it's not hard for someone to understand why someone else would possibly think "Hmmm...why do religious beliefs get this special
pass.

Religuios beliefs, almost universally, entails a belief in a supernatural being
(known as god to many, and bib poppa in the sky to others), and often to
this supernatural being responsible for claimed supernatural events.

If true critical thinking was used to formulate an opinion regarding this, it's not hard to see that it "should" be dismissed as woo. Simple as that.

Relious beliefs in a god often get a pass from others who are skeptics in
regards to all other supernatural events.

Some wonderful skeptics have held out a belief in a god. But that in no way means that people can't question their "giving their OWN person supernatural
god belief" a pass.


I hope I clarified my thoughts on this a bit better than I previously attempted to.


Cheers,
DrZ

Many of us interpreted your original post just like this. Those of us who did interpret it the way you describe here also agree with it. On 15 pages now we have tried to explain this as well, in all ways possible... Hasn't helped so far for the ones who are on a "righteous mission" and who think we are sabotaging it somehow So good luck with this explanation. I do hope it will be believed this time.

And look at me! I said I wasn't going to post here anymore in a few days, but as soon as I take the smallest breaks from my work, I'm at it again

 

[-Fran-]

Yes... that was me. I'm the one blaming the blowhards. You're still blaming yourself. So is BigLes. And Fran. But you can't fix them, and they don't know they're the ones who have something to learn and not as much to teach as they imagine. Disagreement is normal. But most people work it out or laugh it off, right? I think women always wonder if it's something they said. But for some people conflict is their favorite sport, and their snits never lead to further understanding or a resolution... just some Twilight Zone tangential drama that you wonder how you managed to fall into where they are playing a win-lose game that you have no idea about-- and you thought you were just having a discussion.

I think you are right! I am well aware of my shortcomings, that I still have a lot to learn, and that I am not immune to flawed thinking and misunderstandings. So, yes, often when these conflicts drags out, I do start to look at myself. Sometimes it's so simple as me wondering if I really did understand a certain English word correctly.

 

[drzeus99]

Should a "true" sceptic be the guy getting thrown out of the airport for demanding to see the passenger list, the crudentials of the mechanics and pilots and to be able to check the engine, runway etc, before he will board a plane?

I think you're missing the point completely.

To answer your question. Of course not.

Those instances aren't based on supernatural claims.
People also have to apply common sense to critical thinking.
Of course no one can check the contents of a can of corn before
they buy it to make SURE it has corn, but the chances that it does
is near 100% (if it's labeled as corn and sold as corn). We apply good
judgement based on reasoning and common sense in that (and the airport)
instance.

But belief in something that has no verifiable evidence of any kind, and
is based on other reasons, and also incorporates a supernatural cause
should ALWAYS be questioned. That's what being a skeptic is all about.
It's about the claims of woo and supernatual.

That's the difference.


Cheers,
DrZ

 

[drzeus99]

Which is still open to interpretation as there is no such thing as complete knowledge. .

Agreed. But we have to have to have some type of thinking process to
weed out woo from non woo, and critical thinking and skepticism is the
best place to start.


Cheers,
DrZ

 

[schlitt]

If the topic were:

"Should skeptics, by definition, be anti spiritualist mediums"

Would anyones viewpoint be different?


-Psychic powers have as much possibility of existing as god.
-Both can be subject to tests for their existence.
-Logical conclusions can be drawn from what we know about both claims, the reasoning behind the claims, and the logical (in)consistencies.

So, can someone be a skeptic and believe in psychic spritualist mediums?

I would say the answer is; they can claim to have used skeptical methodology, and term themselves "A skeptic".
But the real issue is if we should concern ourselves with whether or not the self proclaiming skeptic is in fact correct.

Does being incorrect rob you of your skeptical status? Reaching an incorrect conclusion would seem to contradict the very purpose of skepticism.

There is a correct and incorrect position on theism. (I do not claim to know it )
Skepticism concerns itself with finding the correct position.
But the fact that finding the correct position through skepticism results in different positions is testament to the issue's inherent unprovability, or that one of the sides (Theist or Atheist) is using a flawed skepticism.

It would seem that we can never be 100% certain of what is true or false when it comes to supernatural claims, it is skepticism itself as a tool that gives us the best way to decide. If skepticism is being used and different conclusions are being made, something is wrong somewhere.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

See... you think it's you. .....

Sometimes I re-read something I've posted and think I could have worded it better. Other times I just have to accept the fact I am frank in situations where other people might be more polite. And sometimes I think it is the other person. In a thread topic like this one and in the politics threads, some people arrive with those chips on their shoulders.

 

[drzeus99]

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

Half naked?
<mumbles under breath.."cop out" >


Cheers,
DrZ

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

.... I think women always wonder if it's something they said. ...

I'm also of the opinion a lot of the negative reactions I might get in person to my expressions of opinion are because a woman is less tolerated if they appear dominant. A guy could easily argue the same things I do and not get the same response. I don't think that's true so much on the board though. A forum is much more gender neutral. But maybe after a few too many negative responses when women assert their confidence, we begin to feel it is us.

 

[-Fran-]

I'm also of the opinion a lot of the negative reactions I might get in person to my expressions of opinion are because a woman is less tolerated if they appear dominant. A guy could easily argue the same things I do and not get the same response. I don't think that's true so much on the board though. A forum is much more gender neutral. But maybe after a few too many negative responses when women assert their confidence, we begin to feel it is us.

If they are not using the tactic of calling us things, like "girl" and "Dear" because then I am pretty sure it's them

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I missed a few things here I should comment on.

...
Anecdotal evidence from sources you've learned to trust from your own experiences might not stand up to any public sceptical analysis, but does that make it irrational to believe them? If a close, trusted friend says he saw a distinctive, rare bird in his garden which all the experts say should not be found within 300 miles of the area, is disbelief the rational approach if there's no apparent reason to doubt his sincerity or competence?

Trusting the opinion of an expert is not unskeptical. It also isn't the same as, "arguing from authority", a commonly cited logic error. Trusting someone's observations is also not unskeptical. Here you are just talking about different levels of reliability of the evidence.

...Should a "true" sceptic be the guy getting thrown out of the airport for demanding to see the passenger list, the crudentials of the mechanics and pilots and to be able to check the engine, runway etc, before he will board a plane?....

Here you are mistaking beliefs and conclusions with decisions about risk reduction. I can see the airplanes are not falling out of the skies on a daily basis. So I make a decision to fly on one without the activities you describe here. I make a decision to eat fast food. That doesn't mean I believe it is good for me. It means I have chosen to take the risk of poor diet in exchange for the benefit, fast tasty satisfaction.

 

[drzeus99]

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..

Agreed. Of course.

With that in mind, if the skeptical methodology is truthfully, unbiasedly,
and honestly used with any supernatural claims, such as religious beliefs,
it should lead to a conclusion of woo.

And when I say being unbiased, I mean that if you examined the claims
of a supernatual diety and the supernatural claims of religions, from the
POV of someone examining the claim for the first time with no prior knowledge
(for arguments sake, let's just say an alien was examining the claims of
a supernatural diety and supernatural religious claims), and used critical
thinking a skeptic would use, as well as logic, reason and rational thought,
it seems to me that (again, if one is being truly honest and has no agenda),
they'd say that the alien would come to the conclusion that it's complete woo.

I personally believe that if people argue against that, they are being dishonest with themselves (or don't understand what critical thinking and skepticism really mean). But that's just my opinion.


Cheers,
DrZ (your mileage may vary)

 

[articulett]

Sometimes I re-read something I've posted and think I could have worded it better. Other times I just have to accept the fact I am frank in situations where other people might be more polite. And sometimes I think it is the other person. In a thread topic like this one and in the politics threads, some people arrive with those chips on their shoulders.

We all have biases and chips on our shoulders-- but it's the ones shouting about other peoples' chips that seem to have the biggest ones of all from what I see. I always wonder if I should tone it down. But then I think-- why am I the one worrying about this and not the ones I think should be the ones toning things down. I trust that the people I respect will clue me in if I go over the top-- and for the most part, I've just been encouraged. I hope that I'm at least as respectful of the opinions of other people as they are respectful of mine.

I may be wrong... but I never feel like I start flinging the ad homs. But once I sense nastiness-- my claws come out. I encourage people to put me on ignore if I'm "too much". Or let me know by pm that I've crossed the line or hurt their feelings.

When people stalk my posts or bring up issues from other threads-- my fangs come out as well as my claws.