How am I reading this wrong? "The skeptical approach is to say: "God does not exist"...". Do you mean "the skeptical approach is to try to say..."? Otherwise I don't see how this is not a baseless claim?
See my response to Apology.
Surely the atheist who says "There is no God, because there is no scientific evidence" is saying that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence?
No, because "There is no God, because there is no scientific evidence" is
provisional, like all scientific truths are.
You can't say that "The Earth is not flat, because there is no scientific evidence" is saying that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence - can you?
Your belief is testable. We could measure your brain to see what is happening when you listen to the music. We could determine which elements of the music cause you to like it so much. We could test the skill of the composer and the composition against other composers and so on. We could eventially come to a conclusion as to whether or not your belief is true measured against the different facets which make up music composition.
I do not think this example fits.
Now you are talking about a lie detector that is always 100% correct, and that there is a way to find out if music is "good" or not.
You can't test the "skill" of a composer against another and see which one "wins". Bach was practically forgotten for decades after his death. Was Beethoven a better composer than Bach? Than Mozart? They composed in different styles, in different types of works.
As for testing which elements of the music that are pleasing - that's inherently down to taste. While I share a joy for Händel's Messiah chorus with a lot of other people, I find the "For unto us a child is born" chorus better. Not a lot of people can pin that one down.
Am I
wrong? We can't tell either way, because the question is misplaced.
I do not doubt that the belief in god may bring comfort.
My point is if something is untestable, what way is there to demostrate if the belief is in fact true or not?
There isn't! But the key is: It isn't claimed to be true.
Without a way of demonstrating a belief to be true, a methodology which requires evidence will not accept it as true.
It isn't claimed to be true.
I dont like to contruct a straw man here, but this it what it seems to me to be what you are saying:
"Skepticism should not be applied to anything which is untestable."
No, I'm saying that skepticism
cannot be applied to anything which is untestable. "Should not" as in "should not because it can not".
To me, this type of logic flies in the face of skepticism. My way of viewing skepticism is, that claims should only be accepted which can be shown to be true.
But in order for it to be true (or not!), it has to be testable.
At the end of the day skepticism comes down to a well informed guess at a conclusion. We can say with high probability Sylvia browne is not psychic. We can say with high probability that homeopathy is rubbish. What allows us to say these things is that we have tested for evidence and found none.
With a claim where these same tests cannot be undertaken, the position should not change from "We require evidence".
We can go a little further. We can say that e.g. homeopathy is rubbish, because we have more than adequate natural explanations that cover each and every claim that homeopaths make. There are no unexplored spots on the map of homeopathy. There is nothing unexplainable in what Sylvia does, either.
No, the belief is not claimed to be evidential, yet it is irrelevant.
Skepticism requires evidence... a skeptic will not believe in invisible pink unicorns. The same applies for any other claim which has no evidence.
-gravity is caused by seahorses...
-pluto's core is molten chocolate...
-our neighboring galaxies original name is "Rhonda Byrne", and was named that by aliens from the planet zorg...
-there is a god who does nothing...
Why should skeptics accept any of these claims as true without evidence?
We shouldn't - if such evidence is claimed.
I can't make sense of Claus or his points or his questions, and I have no idea who he's speaking for or what expertise he imagines he has.
Which points in post#620 do you not understand?
Claus (CFLarsen) doesn't really want evidence. He just generates questions like "evidence?" to generate a big brouhaha so we are tricked into thinking he's interested in something other than winning the imaginary game in his head.
Yes, you cannot officially a "true skeptic" until you've provoked into into delirium by the indomitable (in his head) CFLarson.
More character assassinations.
See if you can get him to nail down his main point instead of challenging everyone else's-- the way Moby did.
I did, in post #620.
I think Egg was just a little confused because your sentence was unclear. I got your meaning, but I think Egg didn't. You said:
* Italics represent the part I changed
So did you say what I think you meant, or have I misunderstood you too? I don't have any particular bone to pick with you, I'm just curious and reluctant to put words in your mouth.
Edit 2: dang I made a mess of this post
When we are talking about skepticism, we are talking about scientific skepticism.
) in various ways in this thread. Things are still going in circles, it seems.
